I like using hand planes but have always put a little camber on the blade edges when hand sharpening to prevent blade tracks. The Tormek straight edge guide does a great job of getting the blade sharp and straight. But I haven't figured out to put a camber on the plane iron edges using this system yet.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
mike
I did this once on a blade for a double iron 16" woodie that is to be used for initial prepping of rough lumber (scrub plane). First I established the geometry of the blade using the SV-76. Then I switched over to the SVD-110 tool rest and free handed the curve of the blade. In this case the camber was fairly large but I believe I could achieve similar results for smoothing blades using the tool rest. I suppose others might suggest exerting pressure on the edges of the SV-76 to achieve a slight camber.
I'm a bit of an oddball on this forum because I only use the Tormek to shape the blades and establish a hollow grind and then finish on regular water or oil stones.
I routinely grind my bench planes with camber. I don't have a roughing plane. If I did, I would probably use the same method as dakotapix.
I put just around .002" (.005mm) camber on smoothing planes; perhaps .006 (.015mm) on the jointer plane; and around 1/16" (1.5mm) on my jack plane which I use for rougher work. My reference source is Christopher Schwarz' Handplane Book. I judge this by eye.
My plane blades are very old Stanleys, "the garden variety". I use a longer blade projection in the SE-76 to allow more pressure on one side and then the other side.
My bench planes are Stanley Bedrocks made in 1909. I bought them from the original owner in 1972. I have never used or examined the newer planes or blades. I knew the newer premium blades are thicker. I did not realize just how much thicker until someome brought me three very nice IBC blades to sharpen at the woodworking show. I definitely need some retraining on modern plane blades!
The Tormek SE-76 video does not mention camber. IMHO this is a glaring omission. Bench plane blades need camber to avoid making "plane tracks", the lines left on the wood by straight ground blades with no corner relief.
To return to my old complaint, we need a more in depth chisel and plane blade training video.
Ken
I use a longer blade projection in the SE-76 to allow more pressure on one side and then the other side.
That's a good tip, Ken. I plan to try that on my smoother blades.
http://tormek.com/media/448712/hb-10-en-v101-se-76.pdf
From the handbook, page 125 about chambers.
Sincerely,
Stig
Noted and reviewed, Stig. Thanks for the reminder. My green 2000 machine is close to 18 years old and the se76 I now use was an upgrade purchased a couple years ago. I suspect the original jig would have worked the same way though.
;D
Quote from: Stickan on December 07, 2015, 03:08:29 PM
http://tormek.com/media/448712/hb-10-en-v101-se-76.pdf
From the handbook, page 125 about chambers.
Sincerely,
Stig
Thanks. Actually, what I use is the TTS-100. I use the B setting(the closer hole) for chisels, where I want a shorter projection. I use the A setting for plane blades, which allows a longer projection length.
I place strips of blank label strips in the the gouge slots with marks for different bevel angles. This method may not be high tech, however, it is consistent and repeatable. (This was the ancestor set up for the kenjigs.)
Ken
ps Stig, your post appeared just as I was ready to post. I thought the longer projection distance was a solid idea. It was straight from "The Gospel according to Torgny".
Thanks for the input. And Stickan, thank you for the info from the manual. I actually have a Grizzly 8 inch water grinder but use some of the accessories. Tried the TTS-100 but can't move the bar close enough to the wheel. Thinking about getting an actual Tormek, but hesitate due to the price. Do all the jigs work on the 4 and 7 Tormek? Do any of you still use bench stones or some other type of sharpening method for your tools or just the Tormek?
The jigs do work on both machines. Regarding the price, I don't think you will find very many that feel the Tormek is way over priced after purchasing and using one. I do wish that I purchased a new one instead of a used one, however.
Mike,
I think most of us probably have an assortment of other sharpening equipment. I do, although a lot of it doesn't get much use since I added the Tormek. Among my other often used sharpening "stuff" is an assortment of hand files. Once you get beyond the "bastard" files (correct name for the coarseness) which are the only ones carried in most hardware stores, you will find second cut and smooth files in a variety of sizes and shapes. My file drawer gets a lot of use.
I don't mean to be critical, merely curious. The Tormek seems to have a common perception of being expensive. Granted, Tormek equipment is not inexpensive. However, "expensive" compared to what? Someone investing in a good set of waterstones, such at Norton or Shapton, will have almost the cost of a Tormek, especially if a DMT diaflat plate is included. A set of Lie-Nielsen, Veritas, or Blue Spruce chisels can approach the cost of a Tormek, as can a comparable set of bench planes. How about a Starrett combination square or rule? A basic set of quality kitchen knives? A good set of quality HSS turning tools?
Before I purchased my Tormek TS-740 Work Station, I read the few reviews I could find. Most blasted the price. At $699, it is not inexpensive. However, compared to the nearest competitor, Kennedy chests, it is very reasonably priced and custom designed for the Tormek.
Admittedly, my comparison items are all top quality products, as is the Tormek. Tools, good and not so good, last a long time. My Stanley Bedrock planes are 1909 vintage. They are fine tools now, as they were in 1909. The Stanley Handyman plane I bought as a boy in 1961 is so so now, as it was then. Eventually most of us accumulate quite a collection of tools. I believe we are all better off to have fewer tools of first-rate quality.
Ken
ps The T4 and T7 are surprisingly similar. All the jigs fit both. They share a common handbook. I believe the T7 has some advantage with turning tools and planar blades. For most work, either is a good choice. After using a T7 and a T4, my favorite is both.
Thanks for the replies.
I understand what you say about the price. I have a combo Mdt diamond stone. I also have a whole assortment of quality water stones and expensive honing jigs. They work okay but are mjigs.and not consistent no matter my method. Plus the softer ones are constantly dishing out. I have spent a considerable amount of money through the years on sharpening items.
I was impressed with the concept of the Tormek and it makes sense.
I bought the grizzly unit a few years ago because I could afford a hundred dollars. It is working okay and the couple of Tormek jigs that I found to work with it work great and are consistent. I can't use the Tormek.jigs I would like since I started turning because I can't get the rod close enough to the wheel.
I could kind of afford the a Tormek on our limited budget now. I am just having a hard time justifying spending the money when I have systems that work just not that well.
I remember an old woodworking adage that says buy a quality tool and you only cry once. Buy inferior tools first and cry every time you have to replace it.
Mike,
To use an overused expression, "been there; done that". I have probably spent as much on jigs and stones over the years which are no longer used as on my Tormek.
Just a suggestion: You say you can't get the bar close enough with your Grizzley unit to sharpen some of your turning tools with jigs. I am thinking specifically about the gouge jig. The "Touch N Turn"system for the Tormek is carefully developed. However, we are not limited to those particular jig settings. If you require a greater distance between the bar and the grinding wheel, you should be able to achieve the same bevel angle by using a greater projection distance of the gouge in jig from the bar. I am not the best math guy on the forum, however, the lengths of the triangle legs should be proportional.
I am not at all familiar with the Grizzley unit, so there may be other constraints. However, if you could use the Tormek gouge jig with a longer projection distance and more separation between the bar and the grinding wheel, it might work well for you.
First, determine a distance between the bar and the grinding wheel which works for you. Measure this with a combination square and/or make a spacer block. You will want this distance to be easily repeatable. (The kenjig I have described in the knife subforum does the same thing. You might want to do a search for the instructions I posted. I you can't find it, PM me, and I will email them to you.)
Once you have the bar to grinding wheel distance determined, use black marker on your gouge bevel and place the gouge in the Tormek gouge jig. Turn your wheel be hand to determine the correct projection length for your bevel angle. Make a simple wooden stop block, and you can return to this length readily. Watch the tormek you tubes on sharpening turning tools; the spacer and black methods are covered.
I am not an active turner, and I don't have familiarity with the Grizzley. If it helps you keep your gouges and perhaps other turning tools sharp and consistent, you are one step further along the way. Should you eventually purchase a tormek, you would already have the gouge jig.
Good luck, and do keep us posted. Don't be shy if you have more questions.
Ken
Ken. That is what I have been doing with the jigs that I can use with the Grizzly unit and it works fine. There are some that just won't work due to tool length and other limitations of the unit.
I just purchased a T-8 to because freehand grinding on my current cheap wet grinder is just too hard. The SE-77 jig that comes with the newer Tormeks is supposed to be an improved version of the SE-76 jig. Supposedly cambering a blade is easier now. I'll be giving it a try this weekend on a new blade that I bought for my Lie Nielsen no5.
I have cambered plane blades with both the SE-76 and SE-77. With the SE-76, the amount of camber was controlled by finger pressure. Uniformity was by eyeballing. For most work this was adequate. It was certainly as accurate as using bench stones and jigs.
The SE-77 allows for jig controlled cambering. For those who might not understand the purpose of cambering, it grinds an arc in the plane blade. The two edges of the blade are ground down enough to disappear during the cut. The high spot in the center protrudes enough to set the depth of the cut. A number five jack plane, usually used for the initial deeper cuts. It has most camber. The longer jointer plane normally is set to a cutting depth of around .005".
A smoothing plane is normally set to .001". The SE-77 allows setting controlled amounts of camber. There is still some skill involved.
All of my bench planes are old Stanleys with thinner blades. The thicker blades of the L-N planes will take longer to sharpen, however, the extra thickness helps eliminate chatter. They are deluxe tools!
Ken
I am new to the Tormek, and I really like it. I use for sharpening all my woodworking tools.
As a newbie, I would like to add my 2 cents and perhaps have people comment on my technique.
for the most part, I followed the manual, which to be honest, lacks a bit of detail perhaps because the makers of the tormek rely on the art of sharpening as a skill and not so much as a process.
Long story short, when I first got it, I read the manual and did what it said, or I THOUGHT I did... my blades came out with a very small concave angle, this was not obvious until you bring a square to the blade, and later on, when I tried them, the blade would take deeper cuts on the edge.
That is when I realized that, whatever I was doing, was wrong and needed to review the manual.
I did, and more concave angles resulted but the problem was mostly my technique...
This is how I do it:
I start by marking the blade with a sharpie, I run the blade and the stone by hand and look for a the grinding pattern to be as close to the centre of the blade as possible. for 2+ inches blades I have never been able to get the stone to ground the entire blade, so making sure it starts from the centre, however long that might be, it is key for a straight edge.
Then...
I simply spend more time on the edges. What does that mean? that I take 2/3 of the blade off the stone and grind with light to medium force on the corner for 3 seconds, and then I slide towards the other corner and in the next step is the key to convex edge:
You can't spend 3 seconds in the transition from Left to Right (or the same time you spent on the corner), because if you do, the centre will be grounded at the same rate than the edge but it is exposed the Stone also twice as much when you change directions. In other words, if you spend 3 seconds on the corner, you gotta move fast to the other side, ground that corner and change again fast. If you take 1 second in the centre as you move accross, that accounts for 2 seconds from the time you left the corner to the time you returned to the same corner. The center of the blade gets more time as you travel through it, that is the nature of the process.
A basically count until 4 when I reach the corner, at 4 I transition to the other side not taking more than 1.5 seconds or 1 second.
This might seem very fast at first but this is how I achieved good results and no convex edges!
If someone has a better method please share it.
I will try to perhaps shoot a video of my process if that is allowed in this forum?
Unlike others, I use the Tormek only for establishing the primary hollow grind on my chisels and plane irons. I use water stones for the secondary bevel and final honing. This is a system that works well for me, and I see no reason to change. My instructor was David Charlesworth, and he posted a video about using the SE-77 for establishing a camber on plane irons, but in practice, he uses the water stones. I could never get the SE-77 to establish a repeatable or satisfactory camber, so I don't even try now. However, I use the SE-77 for all of my primary bevels because the small adjustments allow me to accurately dial in the grind across the iron or chisel.
My process for establishing a camber in a fresh plane iron is to grind a uniform 25-degree primary hollow bevel across the width of the iron. I use a sharpie to monitor progress and ensure I'm still grinding square to the iron. I'll stop when about 0.5mm of unground iron remains at the edge. I use the water stones for this last bit.
To aid in keeping the camber even across the iron, I divide the edge into four sections and put an index mark at each quarter of the iron with the sharpie on the side I'm not grinding. I also use the Lie-Nielsen honing guide during this process.
I use a freshly flattened King 800-grit water stone to establish the secondary bevel camber at 33 degrees (25mm projection on the LN guide). I work the outer edges of the iron first, and then move into the inner sections when I'm satisfied with the outer edges. A 1cm wide strip of 0.5mm thick shim stock along the edge of the water stone helps start the camber. I'll grind one edge of the iron by keeping the other edge on the shim stock. The water adhesion between the stone and the shim keeps in in place as I work the other side. As soon as the sharpie mark is removed at the first index mark, I move the shim stock to the other side of the water stone and grind the other side of the iron. When I'm done, the ground side of the iron will have two narrow wedges of freshly ground edge, with the widest part at the edge of the iron and the point of the wedge at the first index mark in from each side.
For a new hollow grind, this process takes between 8 and 20 firm strokes on the 800-grit stone, depending on how firm my firm stroke is. As the iron requires resharpening, this can take more strokes since the secondary bevel area is increasing with successive sharpenings. After eight or so sharpening sessions, I go back to the Tormek for a new 25-degree hollow grind. This takes less time than the initial hollow grind since the hollow is already formed.
I then flatten the water stone again, remove the shim stock and start on the inner portions of the iron. I use firm pressure on one side of the iron, on the inner indes mark, and take four to eight strokes on the 800-grit stone for each side. I check the progress of the grind to make sure the sharpie mark disappears uniformly and converges on the center index mark. When I'm satisfied with the grind, I go to the 10,000-grit stone for the final honing bevel.
I use the nagura that came with the 10,000-grit stone to establish a fine slurry of paste on the stone. I set the angle to 35 degrees (22mm projection on the LN guide) and make four to eight strokes down the stone. I apply light pressure on the edge of the iron starting on the left and progressing to the right as I complete one stroke. It doesn't take much effort for this and the rocking motion side to side is barely noticeable; however, it does make a difference on the iron. I use a 10X loupe to check my progress and ensure the honing bevel is uniform across the iron.
When I'm satisfied with the final bevel, it's time for the Ruler Trick (only for plane irons...never chisels). I use a 6-inch steel rule along one edge of the 10,000-grit stone and polish the back of the plane iron to establish a microbevel on the back. You can search for the Ruler Trick to see the details.
As Ken wrote, my bench planes, with the exception of my LN #51 Shooting Plane, have cambered irons.
Avenida,
I believe the culprit may be the hand pressure you are using. The SE-77 makes camber control possible; it does not make it automatic. Before the SE-77, I used to extend the plane blades further and use "English" (varying hand pressure, heavier near the two edges. Frequently checking with a small square, it was possible to obtain adequate edge camber. Especially with the jack plane for initial rougher work, this rougher method was more than adequate.
Alan Holtham did some excellent videos for Tormek. I love his use of the word "fiddly". The SE-77 can be fiddly. It can be quite versatile, however, obtaining this versatility takes some practice. Having a spare blade and some quiet time help.
Mike, I hold David Charlesworth in very high regard. I was just getting ready to purchase his DVDs when my wife and I became very involved in caring for our grandchildren. That essentially retired my woodworking. I believe following a master is a good way to learn, and David Charlesworth is certainly a very good mentor. Without questioning his methods, I would say that his are not the only good methods. For aa good second opinion, I would recommend Christopher Schwarz. Chris discusses at length the reasons for different amounts of camber, depending on the function of the plane. A jack (or fore) plane, used for the initial heavy planing, would have a lot of camber to lessen the resistance between the plane blade and the wood. The blade should be sharp, but precise shape is not important.
A long jointer plane is used to straighten edges. The amount of camber is considerably less than with the jack plane (about .005"). If it was very slight (.001") like the final smooth plane, creating a straight edge would be a very slow process.
Once you become fluent with the SE-77, you will be able to make very nice cambered edges.
Incidentally, should you want to combine methods, I would reserve David Charlesworth's fine method for your best smooth plane and, if you have one, a panel plane. Try using the traditional Tormek method with your jack and jointer.
You won't be disappointed.
Ken