Tormek Community Forum

After numerous attempts to sharpen over a dozen 1/4" Bevel Edge chisels,  it is now my considered opinion that the SE-76 jig is fundamentally flawed.

my experience has been that it is far easier to incorrectly mount the chisel  so that the back edge is not flush to the top of the jig than it is to mount it correctly.
Secondly, even with the knobs tightened it is very  easy to twist the chisel in the jig as well, as well as skewing it.

I have managed to get one chisel with a completely square edge, and that was more by luck.
If you can't guess,  I'm fairly fed up with my whole Tormek experience so far.  At this cost level the thing should work out of the box without all these issues.  Yes, the T-7 can get a razor sharp edge very fast, but I've had very poor success rate with getting the edge parallel.

The problem, in my experience, seems to stem from the instructions being far to vague to be meaningful.  There are far too many steps in the setup of the system where it is very easy to get the setup wrong and be completely unaware that it IS wrong.  And by the time I've got a skewed edge, it can be caused by a number of factors.  In my view, the videos on the accompanying DVD aren't much help - they concentrate too much on 'look how shiny a bevel we can get'.  What is needed are in-depth tutorials to point out the common user errors, rather than what is effectively Sales Pitch.

Sorry if this comes across as negative, but in addition to the 200 chisels, I've got somewhere in the region of 120 No 4 and No 5 Bench Plane blades to do as well and I can't afford to be wasting time trying to figure out why I'm getting consistently bad results.

I concur that setting up very narrow blades in the SE-76 jig can be difficult. I think you'll find that the problem will not be so severe when sharpening two-inch plane blades. I keep a small square near my Tormek and check frequently for any out of squareness. A tap on the blade with a small hammer usually solves any problem.

I wonder if the jig could be improved by having a device that centers a blade in the jig so that you wouldn't have the uneven pressures that occur while tightening the screws on either side. For that I would reference the Veritas® Mk.II Honing Guide system. Centering the blade is the first step in setting up this jig for any blade.

I remembered seeing a comment about this in another subject (flattening tool backs), so I went looking.  (I am not sure I am comfortable flattening the back with the Tormek yet, and since my old method works....)
Anyway here was the thread: http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=1933.msg9831#msg9831
Herman Trivilino posted this link: http://tormek.com/media/100841/se76_factors_en.pdf which does deal some with small chisels.  I do remember the training stuff said to start with a 3/4" chisel to learn technique (and it is easier to see if out of square).
Otherwise, I still consider myself too new to chime in.


And thanks for the reminder (forgot to email Ken about the foot switch I read in that thread).

Edit, thanks, not sure why my link has those question marks.

This is the link to that Tormek pdf describing the issues associated with getting a square edge with their SE-76 Square Edge jig:  http://tormek.com/media/100841/se76_factors_en.pdf

This jig has a predecessor, the SVH-60 Straight Edge jig, which is the one I use.

It is difficult to get a square edge with SVH-60 and from what I've seen on this forum, with the SE-76, too.

Kenny, your point about the Tormek instructions is well taken.  Many of us here share that sentiment.  At one point some of us tried to help in this regard by starting this thread, but for it to have its intended outcome we need more support from Tormek.  We're not getting it.  Tormek's presence on this forum is something, in my opinion, that they need to work on.

http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=1565.0

The fact is that successful results with the Tormek require practice.  If you think about it, the same is true of every tool in the shop from the lowly hammer to something as complex as the lathe.  I spent about 8 years between 1978 and 1990 working as a carpenter and to this day when I pick up a hammer and start using it the muscle memory kicks in and it becomes as natural as if it were an extension of my own arm. 

The SE-76 doesn't guarantee a square edge, despite the manufacturer's claims.  It takes practice and vigilance and that's something that's not explained in the "training videos".  As you said Kenny, they are geared towards sales to people who might buy a Tormek rather than to customers who have already bought one.

There is a solution.  Use a belt based sanding system.  They really do work out the box and they're so easy to setup there's pretty much no manual with the tool.  Imagine that?  There's a reasonable sized book with a Tormek!

There is a massive learning curve with a Tormek and I suspect that busy people who expect instant results (an expectation set by the exorbitant entry price and the marketing) are often very frustrated.

It is also true that with any decent workshop tool one would expect to be trained and develop their skill over time.  Perhaps if Tormek's marketing stopped setting the expectation that you'll have a mirror like bevel in minutes and instead used a concept called "the truth" their customers wouldn't experience such terminal buyers remorse within about 2 weeks of use.

Apologies for being a grumpy old man but my pet hate is bouncy bubbly shiny marketing people who: if brains were dynamite, wouldn't have enough to blow their hat off!

Here's another grumpy old man!

Unless I am mistaken, I think I previous responded to one of your earlier postings about the SE-76.

I had great difficulty in the beginning, and like you I thought, as the sales video infers, bang a chisel in the jig and bingo! That is not the case. As per my postings somewhere else on this forum there are a few items which need to be understood before you get success.

Two knowledge issues I had were :-

a) Is the inside right hand edge of the SE-76 (against which you butt the side of the chisel) at 90 degrees to the front face, where you would place a square to see if the chisel is at 90 degrees to the SE-76. That goes out the window as the front face (certainly on my SE-76) was not machined, and was rough from the casting. I actually dressed mine up.

b) How do I prove that the inside right hand edge of the SE-76 (against which you butt the side of the chisel) is at 90 degrees to the centre line through the mounting holes. If that is not the case then I would not expect to get anything ground square. I cannot prove that one, so you just have to assume that the machined inside edge is at 90 degrees to the line through the jig hole centres.

Some problems experienced in using the SE-76:-

i) If there is any non-linearity along the edge of your chisel, then there will be an angular error from where the chisel fits in the SE-76 to the cutting edge of the chisel, and this will give rise to a problem.

Think of a bicycle wheel. A small angular change at the hub has the same angular change at the rim, but the distance travelled at the rim is far greater. The surface of the grinding wheel is like the tangent to the rim. So any small mis-alignment of the chisel at the SE-76 is greatly magnified at the end of the chisel and this shows as cock-eyed sharpening.

ii) Another effect - particularly with narrow chisels - is angular error in the other plane ie if the chisel twists in the jig.

If the chisel twists in the clamp, because the chisel has a narrow back, then an angular error is induced ie the flat back of the chisel is no longer parallel to the surface of the grinding wheel. This again results in cock-eyed grinding.

iii) There may be a permanent twist, however small, in the chisel along its length. This again means that where it is clamped in the SE-76 is a different plane to that where it meets the wheel. I have one old chisel that is very pronounced in this respect, and I just live with it.

iv) You can of course have all of the problems above  simultaneously!

How to get round these issues:-

A) I do not flatten the back of my blades or chisels on the side of the Tormek wheel - I don't feel in control enough. I have flattened them all (the last inch or so) on Japanese water stones and went through finer grits, and then polished the backs up on the Tormek leather honing wheel. After this I do not expect to touch the backs again for some time.

B) When I mount a chisel in the SE-76 (or indeed any blade), I butt it up against the right hand reference edge, and lightly tighten the clamping screws. Against the light, I then look at the blade end on to see if it sitting flush with the reference edge and also if the back of the blade is flush to the clamp. If not, loosen clamps, move around and re-tighten until flush. Do not overtighten clamps.

As an extreme example, try using the clamping screws way out of alignment so that the clamp only holds the bevel edge of the chisel at one corner and see the light gaps and distortion you can induce.

C) Assuming that the wheel has been trued up with the diamond truing tool, and when the universal support bar (USB) is hovering just above the wheel, eyeball the gap and check that the USB and wheel surface are parallel. Then set the USB, SE-76, angle setting jig and get the chisel ready for grinding.

D) Now the important part. Mark the area of the blade which is to be ground with a felt tip marker. (Sharpie is a trade name in the USA.) This is the most useful 'tool' you can have.

Start the machine and take a couple of strokes across the blade. Do not press hard down. Then check the shiny area of the blade where the marker pen has been rubbed off. This will straight away show whether the resulting grind is going to give you the right answer. I used to be almost paranoid about using a square across the end of the chisel, but with practice I now just eyeball it.

Do not get confused with a previously cock-eyed grind making your new grind look misaligned. Check with a square as required.

If the new grind appears squint, re-apply marker pen, and take another couple of strokes whilst applying an increased pressure to one side or the other and check if that has improved the situation, or going the wrong way. If slight pressure increase on one side of the blade does not give the desired result, slightly release the clamp, adjust the angle of the blade in the SE-76, and re-tighten. I have found that apart from finger pressure, changing the pressure from one of the clamp screws can sometime change the outcome.

Keep applying marker pen and checking progress frequently. I find now that I can generally correct my grinding with pressure changes.

Do not rush at this. Ge the alignment issues solved first. Sense it through the fingers.

When I am getting the desired grind, I re-grade the wheel for a finer grind, still applying marker pen all the way, and then move to the honing wheel.

If I have a burr on the edge when grinding, I either gently take it off using the back of the chisel on the honing wheel (freehand) with the chisel still in the SE-76, or a rub on a fine water stone. Take care not to polish up a micro-bevel on the chisel back, not so important on a plane blade.

When I have honed up the bevel on the leather wheel, I have gloss surface, and when the chisels have been in use, I generally just re-hone them. Re-grinding on the wheel is now infrequent.

Trust this helps - but the marker pen is your best friend.

That was a ruddy good post. Nice one Robin.  By the way Tormek marketing.....that's called "the truth".  You ought to try it every now and then.

We have here a multifaceted situation which won't be resolved with a short post.

First of all, for those of you who might not realize it, Sweden is on a  national holiday period until August 4.  So is Denmark.  Such a long national period of vacation is unknown on this side of the pond.  However, we should not realistically expect any response from Tormek AB until the work force returns in August.  I would not expect to hear back from a US firm on the ourth of July; so it is in Sweden.

I hope we will have some input from Sweden within a reasonable time of returninb to work.  Like any quality business in the manufacturing industry, Tormek must have quality standards.  For example: the squareness of the registration fence of the SE-76.  "Perfectly square" is not part of the vocabulary of the machine tool industry.  "Within tolerance" is the correct term.  It is not realistic or necessary to expect the fence to be at exactly ninety degrees.  It would be interesting to know what the Tormek  quality specification is.  My guess is that the spec is within some fraction of one degree, expressed as + or - so many minutes or seconds of arc.  I would be curious to know the exact factory tolerance.

A 1/4" chisel is not an easy tool to grind precisely.  Most chisels are bevel edged to fit in more tightly for things like cutting dovetails.  As such, while the back of the chisel is a quarter inch wide, the top is much more narrow.  This is the reason the earlier jig was redesigned as the SE-76.  It registers off the wider back of the chisel. It is a very logical change in design.

Whether cutting wood or being ground, the small size of a narrow chisel means the same applied pressure translates into more force per square inch. It should be sharpened with a lighter touch. As such a narrow chisel is often ground to a more obtuse angle.  A two inch chisel might perform very well at twenty degrees where a narrow chisel might need thirty to maintain the edge as long.  As I said, this is a multifaceted situation.

This situation reminds me of helping my young granddaughter practice the piano.  She is working on the Cat Theme from Peter and the Wolf.  The piece, while not long, has difficult rhythms and note progressions.  We finally achieved success by practicing just the last measure.  Once that was mastered we practiced the last two measures.  The piece is ten measures long.  It is actully the first five measures repeated.  Once she could play measures six through ten, she could play all ten measures.

Kenny, I believe a change in mind set would help.  I would suggest starting with the wider chisels.  They are easier to grind,as they have more bearing surface.  The other mindset is to forget the last 199 chisels.  Use the first chisel, 3/4" recommended as in the second thread.  Spend whatever time is necessary to make that one chisel acceptably sharp.  Learn from the process.

Once that first chisel is "within your tolerance", move on to the next chisel.  I realize you have 200 chisels to sharpen.  However, once you become fluent with the first chisel, the rest will take progressively less time.  Make every 3/4" chisel sharp.  Then every wider chisel sharp.  Save the narrower chisels until you have that much successful practice. 

Using the black marker and square should be part of your standard routine.  I use a Starrett solid square.  I don't remember Starrett's tolerance standard off the top of my head.  I believe it is something like + or - .0001" over the length of the blade.  As I recall Starrett's standard is tighter than the British Military Standard. (different standards for different applications). Whatever it is, it far exceeds the degree of squareness necessary for a wood chisel, just as the degree of sharpness necessary for a surgeon's scalpel exceeds the need for one cutting dovetails or inletting a hinge.

Kenny and Robin,have you measured the angle of the edges you have sharpened on your chisels? I think we need to separate quality standards into functional squareness and for lack of a better term "vanity" squareness.  I know we take pride in delivering a "perfectly" square edge.  This is not a bad thing.  Would a sharp chisel whose edge is a degree off square still cut an acceptable dovetail?

To Herman, our resident former carpenter:  If the head weight of your "sixteen ounce" hammer would gain or lose an ounce, would it still be functional?

I am not condoning sloppy work. I do believe in proficienty developing from careful, methodical practice.  Kenny, asuming your sharpening need is ongoing, I would expect the 200 chisels you sharpen next year to be done in a more workmanlike manner than those you sharpen this year, and probably less so than those you sharpen three years from now.  I would expect your initial work to be "within tolerance"" and well done.  I believe experience will tighten up the meaning of "within tolerance".

I totally agree that the training videos are designed to support the marketing department.  Tormek is not alone in this; it is the way of business.  There is room to grow.  There is a company need to assist new hands it becoming skilled hands.  Skilled hands will help sell more units.  Frustrated hands will not. I was fortunate in being introduced to the Tormek by Ernie Conover, a woodworking teacher I have known and respected for many years.  Those less fortunate will have their initial exposure on this forum.  This forum can be a valuable learning experience.  For the curious potential buyer, all the dirty laundry is here to be read.  As with any tool, there is a learning curve with the Tormek. The difficulty of this learning curve could be reduced with more specific training material. With better videos, the frustration vented on this forum would lessen.  That would not hurt the marketing department. 

Kenny, do keep us posted with your odyssey.  Robin, your thoughtful posts are much appreciated. Herman, your carpenter background adds to the forum.  Let's keep moving forward.

Ken

Quote from: Ken S on July 19, 2014, 01:46:46 PM
The difficulty of this learning curve could be reduced with more specific training material. With better videos, the frustration vented on this forum would lessen.  That would not hurt the marketing department. 

I agree completely.  Implicit in your sentiment is the issue of customer expectations.

When you watch the SE-76 video:

http://tormek.com/international/en/grinding-jigs/se-76-square-edge-jig/

you hear this sentence spoken: "The jig automatically lines up the chisel to its upper, flat side so the tool always mounts correctly and grinds at 90°."

In my opinion claims like this are at best misleading and at worst cause new Tormek owners to be disappointed in their recent purchase.  It always mounts at 90° but it doesn't always grind at 90°.

I wonder if at least part of this expectation is cultural.  I haven't spent any time in Scandinavia but can easily see how a cultural difference, however small, could make a significant difference in the expectations created by advertising.

And let's face it, this issue is all about expectations created by advertising.

This issue has been around for as long as I've been around Tormek.

First, in defense of the company and the marketing department, their degree of exaggeration pales in comparison to just about any other consumer product made anywhere in the world.

If every eventual pitfall were discussed, the instructional videos or books would have to be 10 hours or 1000 pages. Further, in these days when published material appears everywhere, if a video were produced specifically for owners, it would be a matter of hours before that material would be made available to the broader market, potentially scaring off future customers.

Let's compare sharpening a square edge on a Tormek to hand cutting dovetails. You get a set of outrageously expensive chisels and an equally high-priced fine toothed saw (or two), read a book (or two) and start. Unless you're a far better hand with saw and chisel than I am, your first joint will be somewhat comical. In fact, I would go so far as to say your first dozen joints might be less than optimal. Are you going to blame your chisels and saws? I bet not.

Straying from the company line, I personally prefer the original SVH-60. It was much, much easier to screw up with it, but it also had some "tweakability". You could roll the tool in the jig slightly simply by torquing down on one side of the clamp and backing off the other. However, no matter how many times that was explained, customers demanded a more accurate and less variable design. Thus the SE-76 was developed. Referencing from the flat face of the tool, rather than from the beveled back gives a much less variable clamp, however it demands that every other variable be just as accurate. The tool faces have to be perfectly parallel. The grindstone has to be perfectly parallel to the Universal Support. And, the reference edge has to be perfectly straight. Also, the finish of the grindstone has to be perfectly uniform.

If I were guessing what Kenny's problem is, my first guess would be that the tool is squirming away from the reference as he tightens the clamp. I know that's the thing that happens to me the most. Also, with very narrow chisels you can roll the tool in the clamp if you don't bring the clamp down evenly...a little bit makes a big difference, as someone mentioned earlier.

The answer has already been brought up, you have to monitor the edge as you're grinding. Check it, if it is out a tiny bit, apply a little extra pressure concentrated on the long point. If it is a lot, run the short point off the edge of the grindstone, leaving only the long point on, then blend it back into a straight line.

I use the SE-76 for chisel sharpening and have experienced similar problems with my narrow chisels (1/4" or smaller). In my view, the problem seems to be caused by the narrow gutter that's cast into the lower part of the jig, right over against the squaring boss. The chisel "tips over" slightly into that gutter, causing the chisel to be sharpened on an angle. My current solution is to either use the SVH-60 for narrow chisels, or just move the chisel over a short distance away from the SE-76's gutter and square it up with a small machinist's square. In either case, problem solved.

Of course, problem solved actually means also truing up the stone to get the face of it parallel to the bar. If you don't do that, no amount of screwing around with the jig will get you the square edge on the chisel that you're after. With that done, the SE-76 works a treat for me for everything except the narrowest chisels, as I mentioned above.

For wider chisels I have had no problems whatsoever with the SE-76, except for what must be the common problem of sharpening butt chisels or those that have been sharpened down to where there's not enough chisel left to get the angle you want. Since my butt chisels tend to be beater chisels anyway - I keep a handful of them in my boat-work tool bag just for risky business, but I start out the season with them razor sharp anyway - I just go ahead and sharpen them to whatever angle I can get out of the jig: 30 degrees if I'm lucky, 35 if I'm not. Often I can position the jig so that the knuckle at the bottom lies outside the stone and I can move the bar in pretty close.

What I plan to do with the SE-76 is fill that gutter with JB-Weld and then flatten the filler and true it up with a plane float or a fine-toothed file, while trying to not screw up the otherwise flat part of the lower section of the jig. The reason I'm here today, in fact, is to see if anyone's said anything about that gutter to explain why it's there. If I don't hear any objections to this strategy I'm going to go ahead with it, and then report back on how well it worked.

Tom

Quote from: Tormek moderator on July 19, 2014, 06:12:57 PM
If every eventual pitfall were discussed, the instructional videos or books would have to be 10 hours or 1000 pages.

This particular pitfall is far more common than any of the others.  Perhaps because the SE-76 is provided with every Tormek people tend to think it's somehow more basic or common than the other jigs and are disappointed when it doesn't perform as advertised.  I agree with you when you make the analogy with other skills like cutting dovetails. 

The fact is that we see a lot of customer complaints on this forum concerning this particular issue.  More than any other.  That's not been disputed.  Perhaps marketing could address this by simply adding the phrase "with practice" to their claims.

"The jig automatically lines up the chisel to its upper, flat side so the tool always mounts correctly and with practice grinds at 90°."

There's nothing wrong with honesty in advertising.  When done properly it has a positive impact on sales, and when ignored can have the opposite effect.

We haven't had any response from kennyk - so it would be interesting to hear if he has made any progress, which is the real crunch for this topic. Also if he could say where he lives in case he is near someone who could help him.

I am not trying to cause an argument with the following remarks, I am trying to be fair and reasonable, and hopefully, helpful.

After a very long time of deliberating whether I could justify the expense or not, I bought the T7 (plus the wood turner's kit) primarily for chisel and plane blade sharpening.

My initial expectations with the SE-76 were not met (see previous posts) - nothing like the videos. However I stuck at it and finally became pretty proficient. I was disappointed that for the financial outlay I had to spend so much time getting up the learning curve with this one jig.

Prior to buying the T7 I was pretty good at sharpening chisels and plane blades, but having watched the videos I could see a more consistent level could be achieved in a shorter time, and one which would save further wear and tear on my finger joints from hundreds of hours using waterstones.

If I had been forewarned, with a brief statement in the videos that errors could be introduced due to discrepancies from non-linearity of blade sides; uneven clamp pressures; user issues etc, then I may have been more astute from the outset.

In the SE-76 video, as linked by Hermann above, the presenter states that the chisel should be put against the straight shoulder of the jig and the clamps tightened. He then states "A square positioning in the jig is an essential pre-requisite to get a square edge when sharpening". He then uses a small engineer's square.

Is he checking that the chisel edge is square to the side of the chisel, or my original interpretation that he was checking it to the front face of the jig.

This was one of the problems I had in my understanding:-

Which is the reference to achieve square edge sharpening?

The straight edge inside the jig, or an un-machined (pretty rough) front face of the jig?

There's a conflict straight away.

Another comment by Forum Moderator Jeff (who has probably sharpened more chisels than the rest of us combined) thinks that kennyk's problem is "the tool is squirming away from the reference as he tightens the clamp."

My question, considering my remark above, is - What reference?

I don't think it would be detrimental for Tormek sales - in fact I think it would be distinctly advantageous - if they had an additional video where some of the typical problems experienced by SE-76 users are addressed and demonstrated how they can be overcome. (How many tips have you picked up watching other videos on youtube?) This comes under the category of helping their customers. Note this is not saying that the SE-76 is deficient, it is addressing user problems and induced errors.

An earlier post above referred to attempts at making dovetail joints. There are many ways to address such joints, and there is a plethora of videos, magazine articles and books showing how each writer illustrates their preferred method. However, how many spend a little time demonstrating common problems and how to work round these issues? I don't think that the dovetail reference is a particularly appropriate comparison for the SE-76 issues, because it is a free hand sawing and chiselling exercise, and I haven't shelled out £700 ($1200) for a dovetail guide!

If you are trained by, or work with a good cabinet maker, (or indeed any type or craft or other line of work) he will pick up why your dovetails are poor and how to correct the errors. I had some very good instruction from a skilled cabinet maker and loads of points just to saw a straight line, and how to correct my problems.

A very good point was made by a surgeon lecturer at medical school. You can't just sit down with books and then start operating on someone - you have to be shown what really goes on, what to do, and what to expect. It's called experience.

Likewise when in a previous life and I was training ship or offshore personnel in our systems, after covering the 'how it should work' I always tried to spend as much time as possible covering and practising scenarios of what to do when things didn't work. What is the most useful part of the course?

There is a Proverb, which was painted in a prominent position in my old high school assembly hall:-

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all your getting get understanding

How true for the SE-76.

I did post sometime ago a jig I had developed for use with the SE-76, complete with manufacturing drawing. I was surprised that there was no feedback or interest from Tormek.

Since my comments posted (# 5) above, I have dreamed up a modification for the SE-76 which I expect to overcome a lot of the issues with this jig. Just need some time to go and experiment. It would be even handier if I had a mechanical machine show. I'll let you know.

Despite all of the above, I'm glad I have my T7.

Excellent posts, gentlemen.

Ken

well you've all managed to talk yourselves round to feeling justified with the T7 :-)

I will say one thing about the uncanny skill in product positioning with a premium price.  Customers value the goods accordingly higher and are prepared to put inordinate amounts of time into fixing the foibles to justify the price tag.  Anything to avoid the dreaded thought "oops made a mistake with that"!

The comparison between Tormek and hand sharpening aren't really comparing apples with apples because once you've gone "machine" and left the stones behind then your genuine comparison is with other "machines".

I have had the luxury of trying different "machines" which is why I'm so adamant that the age of the wet grinder is almost certainly drawing to a close.  It wont go in a week or a year but there are innovations out there which cost half the price and get the job done in a FRACTION of the time without having to invest a weekend in trial and error learning.

In business, its an exceptionally Darwinian environment where only the fittest survive long term.  The primary drivers for business fitness are cost and functional fit for purpose.  Regrettable from a nostalgic perspective perhaps but the Tormek way of doing things is a dinosaur that just doesn't yet know it.

Perhaps it will survive by specialsing

Speaking as a dinosaur, survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean survival of the finest.

My beloved old wooden view cameras and Leica have supposedly been replaced by snaps made with cel phone "cameras".  All the artistry and craft of carefully composing images and then orchestrating them in the darkroom has given way to quick snaps between tweets occasionally doctored by "imaging programs".

My favorite note in the old LP of Jacques Brel has become ordinary in the new digital technology.  Was it the new technology or just some clod who had no appreciation of beauty?

The telephone landlines I spent my working life installing and installing have been made redundant by the marketing of today's wireless technology.  No mention is made of the superior sound quality of a properly maintained copper landline.  The anywhere, anytime, with whatever reception might be available has transplanted quality transmission, just as texting has supplanted carefully crafted letters.  Better to have hundreds of little texts hastily done than a carefully thought communication.

Speed trading in unknown new investment ideas is replacing carefully planned investing in quality longterm stodgy fine stocks and mutual funds.

Belt grinders are not taking over from wet grinders; "tools" with throwaway carbide cutters are.  Actually, computer designed and manufactured items are replacing artisan skill.  Why bother to make things when one can buy them so cheaply at the local big box store?

I have no desire to trade in or scrap my wet grinder.  My oil stones and water stones have been maintained flat and dressed with a diamond flat plate.  I enjoy being able to produce a well crafted four facet drill bit adjustable to my needs.  I can't easily do that with other methods including a belt grinder. My present level of skill with sharpening drill bits is not perfected.  It is much improved from my first effort.

I like being able to work in the relative quiet atmosphere of the Tormek.  Not a lot of noise; no sparks or dust.  With careful work and experience, the sharpening can be surgical.  Not the fastest or necessarily the whole process.  I still prefer to do the final flattening and polishing of chisel backs with a flat glass plate.  I often prefer a carbon steel tool, requiring more frequent sharpening to high speed steel of modern alchemy. While the carbon steel won't hold the edge as long, the fine grain structure yields a keener edge.

I am not opposed to progress.  I do use a digital camera.  I never cared for film with color sent to the lab.  I never had control of the process, and the prints usually left me cold.  Digital is not the same as craft slowly produced in the darkroom, but it is a definite improvement over just sending the film to the lab.

I am not opposed to other mechanical sharpening equipment. When I have a lot of metal to remove I gravitate to the dry grinder with 46 grit stone or the belt grinder.

Returning to the 1/4" chisel, it is a difficult tool to keep aligned properly.  Wider chisels are easier to keep aligned.  Sharpening a wider chisel also involves removing more metal.  For the little bit of metal being removed, sharpening a narrow chisel with stones is not an arduous task. If completing the process on a Tormek was beyond my experience level, I would do the final sharpening (after removing any large nicks) with abrasive paper on glass or stones.  Use the practical tool for the job at hand.

Ken

I am not being a wise guy. But I can not imagine my Sharpening life with out my T7.I do not have the time or incentive to sharpen my chisels by hand anymore. I never could keep a Square edge sharpening by hand.When I got my T7 every chisel I had was out of square according to my 4"Starett .But I brought them all back in one at a time with the T7. I have got to ask.What other system is out there other than by hand.Am I missing something here

It is not my intention to be disrespectful in case any of you are mistaking my bluntness for something else.  But in a word....yes....you are missing something.  All of you who has yet to try a belt driven sharpening technology are missing something.  Innovation always causes a wake of heels dug in attitudes until the very protagonists that defend the status quo have had a chance to actually experience it.  It's a perfectly natural human resistance to change.  More so when a lot of time and effort has been invested in boning up on the old method of doing things.

You could only possibly really understand my perspective when and if you try a belt based grinding system because only then will the sheer momentum of the problems it solves catalyse the acknowledgement of the improvement.

Competitive rules forbid ant specific brand detail but I think its reasonable to discuss the technology as a concept in innovation over the concept of wet grinding.

I think for things like drill bit sharpening, and some other more specialised things the Tormek may continue to excel.  As I said, if they're smart, like all other companies that are faced with a new technology, they will specialise in a narrower niche. (Or in this case, belt sanding is an old technology packaged and delivered to a consumer market).

For any of you who have read Jeffrey Moore's "Crossing the Chasm" you will have a better understanding of the way consumers behave in technology markets.

I cant help think of the way iphone destroyed Nokia's mobile phone business in a staggeringly short time.  I know tools don't go that fast but the parallel is difficult to ignore in terms of principle.

So to use your vernacular Tony.  You can't imagine sharpening without your T7 because you don't have the time or incentive to do it by hand any more.  I can, hand on heart repeat that sentence with the following changes:  I can't imagine sharpening without my belt sander because I don't have the time or incentive to do it on any grinding system any more. 

People may not like it....however I rather think its the truth.

What kind of belt sander are you using .40 years ago I would sharpen my chisel with a Porter Cable Locomotive sander So you are saying I do not like change. If it is not broke don't fix it ,Tormek works  for me until something better comes along .

The real innovation is in the abrasives.  Examples of dry grinders that make use of this technology are the MultiTool and the Sorby ProEdge.  There are other wet grinders besides the Tormek, too.  To each his own.  And her own, too.

Personally I own and use a number of tools, and recognize that each has its uses and its limitations.  When new tools come out I can use them along with my old ones.  It's not an issue of having to choose one over the other, we have the freedom to use both.

No one is suggesting a compulsory either or.  I merely advance the notion that having actually tried both, one would naturally favour the superior solution.  Following precisely the same logic that one would use a Tormek in preference to hand grinding for speed and repeatability.

In the current Furniture and Cabinet Making magazine, there is an article comparing a T7 and a well known belt sander. Interesting to note certain foibles and quality issues on the belt sander and how if the manufacturer paid better attention to these details, how much it could be improved. The general conclusion was there are horses for courses.

Today I had another experience with my T7.

I think Rob, and possibly others too, have previously posted about how long it takes for the T7 to re-shape gouges, ie metal removal not just a quick resharpen of existing profile. I have a lathe, not used that much as just used for parts associated with other woodworking projects, and I can sharpen my gouges (not expensive ones) pretty quickly, until today. Some months ago I bought an oval skew gouge, used it once or twice, and today's job was suitable for the skew gouge. So it needed sharpening. It took me over an hour! I don't know what it is made from, but was it hard! It is some years since I used a linisher, but today I thought - this is a job for a belt sander. So I can see the advantage in this case, but I would not do my plane blades on a belt. Horses for courses.

It was almost certainly High speed steel.  Skews are a nightmare on the T due to the large surface area being ground.

I accept the horse for courses reasoning but my take is simply that its more polarised than that in other words there is a much greater bias in the direction of linisher style machines because they make the processing of most tools faster and simpler.  Like I said, its my belief the grinders will need to specialise so they can dominate a narrow niche.  Business life is absolutely riddled with examples where when a market starts to become competitively crowded, the successful players end up niching.  Its extremely rare they end up being dominant generically.  Look at the car industry, how many categories of vehicle do we have now??

The sharpening tool industry is obviously infinitely slower moving due to the market size but again I believe the progressive commoditisation principles which govern all business economics are just at work here as anywhere else.  The only reason I'm so adamant about it is because I have ACTUALLY TRIED both.  With the greatest respect, most of those arguing for the Tormek can't possibly be presenting a reasoned proposition because they have no experience with these alternatives.  Thus....it is an intellectual only defence of the status quo.  As previously stated, I understand the resistance to change.  I am simply predicting that the move towards what is clearly a superior technology (for the main) is as inevitable as death and taxes.  Its not a question of if....just when.

No one will be forced or required to change and I doubt any of us over 50's will even witness the end game because the pace is slow.  But as night follows day, when a superior technology is well marketed, just as in any Darwinian natural system,  selection of the fittest will occur.

I'll give you a last genuine real life down to earth example of what I'm banging on about then I promise I'll go away and we can talk about bevels again for a few years.

Last Thursday and this Sunday gone my woodturning club all came to my place for 2 practical hands on days.  We set up 7 lathes and had 4 of the senior guys coaching and mentoring. We used my place as I have a lot of space and all the sharpening stations setup.  Specifically I have a dry grinder with Tormek jig extension, a T7 and a linisher style system from a Sheffield based firm here in the UK.

Everyone agreed what they wanted to practice and 5 out of the 7 said the first thing they needed was to get to grips with sharpening.  There were all manner of dinged and multifaceted bevels thrust in my face including one skew that was at exactly 90 degrees to the side of the chisel :-)  Another one of the turners, in fact 3 of them had Tormeks and even brought their elliptical bowl gouge jigs preset with their preferred grind dialled in.

Everyone set about sharpening and I just gave pointers as to what to do on which machine as did the other more experienced sharpeners.  I was deliberately unbiased and the other Tormek guys were extremely biases towards the T7 because it was their sphere of influence and was where all their domain knowledge lay.

Well, Gods honest truth, by the end of the first day, 5 of the 7 guests said they would be buying this particular brand of linisher and one of the 3 Tormek guys caught up with me by the tea and coffee.  Almost whispering in my ear said....I had no idea how good those belt systems were, I've seen them at shows for a couple of years now but I'm definitely going to get one.  Nobody asked about the Tormek except one guy who also asked the price and then proceeded to start uttering expletives before I pointed out my children (standing nearby) were under 10 :-)

This was completely unsolicited.  So, call me Mr Conservative but....the evidence rather speaks for itself.  Perhaps we should temper this to say that for woodturners at least....the evidence speaks for itself.

On the issue of F&CM magazine, the piece may well be objective, unfortunately I haven't read it so cant make any intelligent comment save (perhaps) one sort of well known industrial truism which is that the vast majority of magazines rely on the advertising revenue to drive their profitability.  Therefore, they do devote an awful lot of editorial space to "reviewing" the latest whatever from whoever.  You will often notice that directly after an article on sharpening there will follow several pages of full page display ads devoted to grinders etc.  So the publishers almost NEVER beat up any given manufacturer because that would be biting the hand that feeds them.  Instead most reviews are benign at best trying to give an evenly balanced opinion.  Someone far more cynical than I might suggest that's a deliberate effort to keep both manufacturers sufficiently happy to continue to advertise in said publication. But obviously I'm not....so I won't :-)

Rob, you make a good point.  Speaking only for myself, my experience with belt grinders is very limited.  My ancient $25 dollar yard sale special is hardly a state of the art comparison.

I did go on a learning expedition to a woodworking store in my hometown.  I found the belt grinder you mention.  It was well concealed on the bottom shelf.  It still had the shipping grease and the store carried no accessories.  I picked it up and moved it to a table and took a closer look.  The sales people took no notice or interest.  I would not give the store marketing very good marks.  In truth, I can't really speak about the other product, because I have not used it. Fo my personal knowledge, I would like to try one sometime.

I would remind you of something someone wrote on another manufacturer's forum:
"its not really the done thing to raise another manufacturers products on a forum like this"

One thing I have always appreciated about this forum is the civilized, polite way we can express differing opinions as friends. We are all learning. A Mark Twain quote also comes to mind: "Man is the only animal with the one true religion, all seven of them."

Ken

Can we nudge this discussion back in the direction of helping Kenny get his edges square with the Tormek he's already acquired? Thanks.

was I ranting again?  Must get that soap box looked at :-)

Ken I do believe there is a career waiting for you in the diplomatic corps.  Jeff....er...I mean global moderator with a post count of 4.....you have the patience of Jobe :-)

Alright alright lets talk about bevel angles then (yawn) :-)

Hi Guys

I seem to have opened up a can of worms...

From what I can tell, the issue with 1/4" chisels (6mm) is caused by the notch at the registration edge of the SE-76.  it means that there is less that 4mm of the back of the chisel against the top edge, and 2mm overhanging into that front-to-back channel.  I have a picture but no way to upload it here at work.  The top of the chisel is narrow too, so it means that there is very little to hold the chisel firmly in place.

I've found a work around of sorts, but it is very hit and miss - moving the chisel away from the edge and eyeballing it square.  or just going for it freehand against the support.   Neither is ideal, but it's preferable to >10 degree skews. which have taken me a fair amount of time to correct.  I've had to go back to the old Viceroy Sharpedge flatstone grinder to re-grind primary bevels.


I do think that some sort of in depth instructional video covering the setup of the tools in the jig is what is required.  Given that there seems to be a concensus that the instructions are currently inadequate, it is a relief to know I'm not alone.
The DVD gives very little in the way of useful information.  I think my comment earlier stands.  I don't need sales pitch on a DVD included in something I've already purchased.  Although I'm in two minds whether watching the DVD when in the depths of frustration at poor results is meant as a panacea or a further red rag!

Anyway, I can feasibly see that a video of at least 1 hr would be required on setting up the T-7 / SE-76 alone to include all the pitfalls and  errors that we seem to be encountering.

I do  still think that the play in the legs of the Universal Support is also an issue, given that it causes the outer extremity of the support to move by over 1.5mm  (1/16").  I still have no way of knowing that it is correctly set to be honest and this is causing me some annoyance too.

on a slightly less ranting note.......you just have to persevere.  As long as you keep calibrating the grind progress with a square (I use those really diddy ones) and adjust your finger pressure according to the high spots you will get there.

kennyk - you have now  introduced a comment about usb movement. I have just been out to mine, and to deflect the end of the bar I really need to apply a heavy load. The machine moves first.

I would suggest as per KenS you practice with 3/4" chisels and get up the learning curve. Then for narrow chisels, if a problem in the corner of the SE-76, move the chisel away from the edge, and use marker pen and a small square to check squareness.

Keep up posted.

I've asked Stig/global moderator to remove my ranting post.  Not the right place for it.

Quote from: Rob on July 21, 2014, 10:35:35 AM
I accept the horse for courses reasoning but my take is simply that its more polarised than that in other words there is a much greater bias in the direction of linisher style machines because they make the processing of most tools faster and simpler.

How are they for kitchen knives, pocket knives, and scissors?  Or do you use them mostly for turning tools.  I'm not a turner!
 

Quote from: Herman Trivilino on July 22, 2014, 03:06:58 AM

Quote from: Rob on July 21, 2014, 10:35:35 AM
I accept the horse for courses reasoning but my take is simply that its more polarised than that in other words there is a much greater bias in the direction of linisher style machines because they make the processing of most tools faster and simpler.

How are they for kitchen knives, pocket knives, and scissors?  Or do you use them mostly for turning tools.  I'm not a turner!

When you get into knife making, you will find whole groups that spend way more then the Tormek costs, on their belt grinders.
I am cheap, my Tormek with most of the turning stuff, cost me less then $200.  (then I added the hand tool kit and a few other bits)  I also have the Multitool that Jeff sells now, from when Snap on, closed them out (used to be a distributor under the Blue Point label).  They were around for $109.  I view them more as a fast stock removal tool and fabricating tool.  (although with some of the belts they are also great for cleaning off gaskets)  Jeff doesn't carry the full line of stuff for them (I don't see the adapters for certain grinders, like my Baldor, nor do I see the plane iron jig).
In my view, the Tormek is a tool maintainer, more then a reshaper.  (should be faster then by hand, after practice)

Recall my essay.  There was suggestion of specialisation and niching, for precisely the tools you suggest.

Quote from: RobinW on July 21, 2014, 03:39:58 PM
kennyk - you have now  introduced a comment about usb movement. I have just been out to mine, and to deflect the end of the bar I really need to apply a heavy load. The machine moves first.

I would suggest as per KenS you practice with 3/4" chisels and get up the learning curve. Then for narrow chisels, if a problem in the corner of the SE-76, move the chisel away from the edge, and use marker pen and a small square to check squareness.

Keep up posted.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself properly, the play is not when the support is tightend.  What I mean is it is possible to lock the support in such a position that the bar is out of parallel to the wheel by 1.5mm at one end.   To my way of thinking, this has setup implications, because to use the truing tool the bar must be moved, and I have no way to guarantee that it is in exactly the same plane as it was before.



I'd be interested to see what someone who is more experienced with the machine can determine by deliberately introducing this error ( By that I mean how much is it physically skewing the chisel) , so that I might be able to find an easily repeatable and foolproof method of setup that completely eliminates it. Is it possible that I have a faulty part somewhere?

Moving back to the original 1/4" chisel issue,  it's clear to me that the SE-76 is of little use for 1/4"and smaller bevel edged chisels.  Not only due to the notch I've previously mentioned, but also because of the tightening mechanism only grips the top of the chisel at the back of the SE-76.  it seems what is happening is that the chisel is being clamped by a very small area in one point  and it's causing it to swivel.   


The options are to try tighten it further and cause it to twist in the jig because of the front to back notch at the registration edge, or to allow it to be able to swivel.  Both are causing a bevel that is out of square.

A further difficulty is that my SE-76 has a small, ragged bead most of the way along the front edge, left over from the manufacturing process, and I am having trouble using a square on this edge to check whether the chisel is in the jig correctly if I mount it away from the registration edge.

The quality of machining in certain Tormek products amazes me. The EXYlock is truly well made.  So is the DBS-22 drill bit jig.  I think the SE-76 is going in the right direction.  I notice the cut away ridge and rough machining in mine. The jig works well with wider chisels with more bearing surface, but does seem a little iffy for narrow blades.  Fortunately, the narrow blades require little work to finish off with bench stones.  Someone (Robin?) posted about machining the front surface of his SE-76.  It seems a good idea to me.

Ken

On the question of the support bar going out of square:

I'm a believer in simplifying setup.  I like to use a known fixed distance from the grinding wheel to the support bar and a predetermined projection length of the blade from the SE-76.  In fact, I prefer to use the TTS-100 setting tool (for turning tools) with bench tools. Before grinding, run the TTS-100 (or a spacer block of wood, this needn't be high tech) across the surface of the wheel to make sure it is equidistant along its length. A quick check can save much grinding.

Ken

Kenny,

With regard to the Universal Support, make a habit of placing your thumb directly above the vertical rod with the micro-adjuster on it, pressing down, while you tighten the clamps. This will maintain the plane of the horizontal bar to a reasonably tight tolerance.

Further to that issue, I know that you can introduce a variance in that angle by torquing the end of the Universal Support. However, in actual practice I think you'll find that when making normal adjustments the variance is quite small.

With regard to clamping in the jig, here's a procedure I would like you to try. Index the tool against the edge as designed. Bring the clamping bar down and secure it, paying attention to keeping it parallel to the base. Grind the bevel and check it. If it is skewed, increase the clamping pressure on the long point and decrease the pressure on the short side. Make the adjustments in small increments.

This was the procedure to "dial in" the SVH-60. I'm pretty sure it will work with very narrow chisels in the SE-76.

I've just had another frustrating try.

The ONLY thing that is making any difference to the skew is whether the support is 'torqued' or not.    In complete contrast, I'm finding the variance is massive, as opposed to your 'quite small'.  I'm talking at least 0.5mm of skew over a 6mm chisel.

further I've ended up with the inner clamp screw very tight and the outer one very loose with no further possibility of tightening, and it's still skewed.   

I'm going to pick it up again tomorrow when I'm not feeling quite so utterly fed up with the whole thing.   It shouldn't be this difficult to get a square edge.

I should add, that I've tried to sharpen, so far, over 20 1/4" chisels, so I'm confident I can rule out a wonky chisel as being the problem.
I'm still absolutely fed up, but I'm nowhere near the workshop so can't be tempted to tinker further today.

On my drive home, I've been thinking about the problem, and I have come up with the following thoughts about the problems I have encountered so far.

I cannot get over the fact that tightening and loosening the screws on the SE-76 can only introduce a fractional difference of a few thousandths of an inch to the alignment of the chisel, whereas comparatively, the play on the Universal support legs where they fit into the top of the machine is massive.  Personally the fact that  this level of tolerance is considered acceptable on a commercial product where accurate results depend upon accurate alignment, troubles me greatly.  I mean, when the screws are loosened, it's possible to rattle it.

Further thoughts are that I have not been able to determine how much pressure is required on the back of the tool when sharpening.  For all I know I could be putting far too much pressure on.

My initial instinct regarding the design of the SE-76 still stands.  the gutter, as somebody called it, must be causing at least some of the problems.  As there is no way to reference whether the back of the chisel is firmly against the top edge of the SE-76 other than visually, and that gutter can cause the chisel to twist in the jig, then the design is flawed.  Yes it will work for plane blades and 1 inch chisels, but. the curved clamp against the top of the chisel means that there is very little to hold the chisel firmly in the correct place.


I'll be honest here, I'm really unhappy.  I've taken up a LOT of work time on this, and  I think I could have got more accurate results with Japanese Waterstones.   
I spent several  hours on a Clifton No 7 plane blade  correcting the 1mm skew that I accidentally introduced on the first attempt.


On a separate note, I had quiet misgivings about the stone grader from the outset, and my fears have been realised.  All the stone grader has succeeded in doing is curve the stone surface so rather than flat it's convex - necessitating a further half dozen passes with the truing tool.  My stone is now at 240 mm after 6 months of very little use - it's lost 5mm in the last few weeks.  (It lost 5mm when I first got the machine, and then the machine sat idle for 3 months, with very light use until the last couple of weeks)     Again I feel a victim of vague instructions - how much pressure is too much? how much is not enough?.   Holding a stone freehand against the wheel is bound to negate any accuracy from the truing tool, so I'm feeling that it's another sales gimmick that doesn't do what the sales hype says.

Guys I'm really sorry that this is so negative but I'm just not feeling any love for the Tormek System any more.  The only thing that I actually like is the leather honing wheel.

I had a bit of difficulty in understanding what you were doing and the associated play with the support bar, so I went and did the following.

a) There has to be some play of the usb when the clamp screws are slackened off, otherwise it would not go up and won easily. I started off with the re-truing tool. To set the usb height I fitted the truing tool - clamped to the usb, moved the usb up and down using the micro-adjust screws until the truing tool was just touching the wheel. Then using one finger only on the usb, right on top of the screwed rod with the micro-adjust, I tightened the clamp onto the screwed rod. Took finger off usb, and tightened the other clamp (no finger on the usb) on the smooth rod of the usb. Clamp tightening is 'nipped up' as they would say in a workshop - not Arnold Schwarzenegger stuff.

b) I re-trued the wheel because my last lot of sharpening was on turning gouges and I find that I tend to cause the wheel surface to become a bit mountainous - it took three passes until I had consistent noise and colour when using the TT-50. truing tool. I don't lean on the usb or truing tool, lightly turning the knobs. I also do it slowly, so the surface is fairly smooth.

c) I then removed the truing tool, and dropped the usb down and let it rest against the wheel and tightened the clamp on the usb screwed rod (This is required as I intended using feeler gauges.).

I looked under under the usb against the light. There was a minuscule, and I mean minuscule, light towards the outside of the wheel. So I tried to check it with two feeler gauges. The smallest imperial gauge 0.004" (0.1mm) would not go near the gap. The smallest metric gauge 0.05mm (0.002") would not look at the gap. Conclusion - it's bang on. No way I could expect better. In fact it is tighter than a lot of engineering machining tolerances I have experienced elsewhere.

d) I then lifted  the usb clear of the wheel to an arbitrary height. I used a square and drew two lines (separated by a few inches) across the surface of the wheel, ie parallel to the direction if the usb. I then put a chisel into the SE-76 (with a 50mm extension approx which is what I tend to use for all blades) and set it for 25 degree bevel. Again when the angle was correct. I again placed one finger on the usb right above the screwed rod, and nipped up the clamp. Removed finger from usb, and nipped up the other clamp. I then removed the SE-76 with chisel and measured the distance between the wheel and the underside of the usb. I used the pencil line across the wheel as my reference. I moved the wheel and repeated it using the other pencil line. Due to the shape of the vernier I could only measure towards the outside and inside edges of the wheel.

I got 22.1mm for all measurements. I then refitted the SE-76 with chisel, and set it for a bevel angle of 30 degrees, repeated the measurements and got consistent gaps of 27.5mm. I also tried doing the measurements using some calipers, including from the middle of the wheel surface, and these were all within 0.1mm of the vernier sizes. For someone who is obsessive about accuracy, this is well acceptable!

Conclusion - no errors have been introduced due to the height adjustment of the usb. The usb and wheel remained bang on parallel.

e) Small chisels in the Se-76

I started with a 3mm chisel. This fell into the groove inside the SE-76, canted over introducing a large twist and so no good for grinding. Solution - move the chisel to the middle of the SE-76.

Same effect with a 3.5mm mortise chisel. This has a different shape to a bevel chisel as the front and back faces are not parallel, so caution advised when clamping.

With a 1/4" chisel, it was not clear whether it was canting over, but I would not be surprised depending on the width between the corners on the chisel front face (bevel side). Again to be sure, move to the middle of the SE-76.

With a 10mm (3/8") it appeared to sit flat without any problem.

Trust this helps

Kenny,
Your experiences with your Tormek remind me of when I began using a 4x5 (5x4 in UK) wooden view camera.  In 1981 I paid $1400 US for the camera kit, a lot of money for this working man.  I was really disappointed.  I had wanted the large negative camera for several years.  Now that I finally had it, I couldn't see through the ground glass. I was quite discouraged.  Had I not spent so much I would have quit.  I left it set up on the tripod and kept looking through the ground glass from time to time.  Eventually my eyes adjusted to the ground glass. Once I finally became fluent with it, the 4x5 became my favorite film size.  The view camera spoiled me for any other camera.  It was not at all fast to operate, but in skilled hands it was capable of image adjustments not possible with smaller hand cameras. In hindsight, the frustrating learning curve was well worth the hassle.

I think you are trying too hard.  Pick a time when you are under no time constraints. Choose your best 3/4" chisel, one which is almost sharp and won't require much grinding. Make sure your wheel is dressed flat and square.  Placing a good rule across the wheel will tell the tale. Carefully set the support bar and angle. Think of only sharpening this one chisel. Put all other tools out of your mind.

Start with very light hand pressure.  You will soon develop a sense of how much pressure is necessary for different widths of blades.

Once you are happy with a square ground bevel edge, take your time and use the stone grader.  Use it until your stone feels like glass.  Double check that your wheel is still flat to build your confidence. Once you are convinced your wheel is set for fine, continue with the chisel using very light pressure.  Adjust pressure as needed.

Then set up for honing.

I realize the back of your mind is reminding you that you have two hundred edges to sharpen.  Once you are completely satisfied with one 3/4" chisel, sharpen the rest of the same width chisels.  Then begin with your wider chisels.  By working very slowly and methodically by the time you are sharpening your fourth inch wide chisel, your time will be much reduced. Do not even think of going narrower than 3/4" until every wider chisel is sharpened.  Then go gradually more narrow.

I had a difficult start with the Tormek.  I even redesigned the angle master because I thought it didn't work well.  To my surprise, it works much better in good light.  (outside in my case, although brighter artificial light would work.) I still have to take care to keep my chisels square.  Grind a little and check with the Starrett square.

Violinists must master the "long bow" exercises where the bow is drawn very slowly across its full length. That kind of mindset would benefit beginning Tormek users.

Speed will come with proficiency.  I'm sure having to sharpen 200 chisels would not rattle Jeff. And, with no disrespect meant to Jeff, I believe anything he can do with a Tormek we can do, too, if we are willing to put the same time and effort into the learning process.

Back away, relax and calm your mind. Come back to your tormek with a peaceful mind.

Do keep us posted.

Ken

Well, if I were cutting dovetails using a $600 jig that heavily implied that the first one would be perfect even if used with my eyes closed, and then they turned out comical, then we'd have a parallel scenario.

I do really like my T7, but there are aspects of it that could be improved (as with anything made by Man).

I would also offer http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=1453.msg4691#msg4691 (http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=1453.msg4691#msg4691).

The thing is, I HAD plenty of time to sort out 200 chisels, and the plane blades.  I'm now half way through the six week window when there are no pupils in the school, and  following the instructions and turning out another skewed chisel that should be square is what has been happening.  Now I think I don't have time to recover, even if I was to cut my losses and revert back to Japanese waterstones.

Also, I'm currently of no mind to put the grading stone anywhere near the wheel, as there is no way to guarantee that I'm not going to take it out of true at this stage, and undo the work of the truing tool and I KNOW that it has curved the grinding edge of the wheel badly before, to the point that it needed 8 passes with the truing tool.

I'm also angry, and extremely stressed about it.  According to the instructions and the videos it's touted as being really simple and quick.  I'm feeling like a total klutz.   The reality is that there are so many variables that could cause the problems I'm having, but I have to go through an excruciating process to work out which one; by which time something else I'd previously ruled out might be back in the equation.


Moving back to Robin's post,  The only time I've had success is by putting the chisel in the middle of the jig as suggested.  I'm having to adjust the chisel several times to get it square.  There's no accuracy with trying to align it in the jig with a square as I don't have a straight reference edge   as the front of the jig has that bead.

My point about the Universal support is that it is possible to align or misalign (at this stage I still don't know which) it by putting pressure on the leg without the micro adjust before tightening both screws.  Yet nobody has taken me up on this and I'm feeling that it's being glossed over.   it's not when the height is adjusted. it's when locking it in position. 

To over exaggerate the phenomenon, I'd like somebody to loosen the locking screws, torque the support bar either by putting pressure on the leg without the micro adjust ( the left one if the power switch is to the rear of the machine) or by pulling the outer edge of the support bar up and locking the non-adjust leg first.   Once it's in that position, I'd like someone to grind a bevel and report back whether it is square.   Then I'd like them to loosen the support locking screws again, put downward pressure on the outer edge of the bar and re-lock as before and run the same grinding test.

If neither of these cause any difference to the square of the bevel,  then I've clearly got something not right with my machine, because the difference between them on mine when the support bar is touching the wheel is visible, a gap of around 1mm, and it seems to be causing some of the skew.

What I'm asking is to make sure that I'm aligning the support correctly before I go at it with the truing tool again tomorrow. once the wheel is trued, I can eliminate that and move on to the next thing, as I think the problems are not limited to one factor.

Kenny, where are you located?  I wonder if there's anyone nearby who could help.

Great post, Mike.  I had just sat down at my computer with me SE-76 in hand.  The front surface was a bit rough.  A couple minutes with a six inch second cut mill file and the roughness was gone.  Another five minutes removed a ridge in the inside rear surface.  My method seems adequate; Mike's is superior.

Kenny, you seem quite stressed.  Have you tried slowly sharpening  a 3/4" chisel?  I hate to sound like a broken record, but all you write about are out of square quarter inch chisels. If you take the time to work through the bug with an easier wider chisel, with practice you will soon be up to speed.  Once you get the hang of it, I don't think you will have any trouble meeting your deadline.  Change your mindset to doing the easiest tool first, one at a time.  Think just one tool. With practice you should be able to sharpen most chisels in ten to fifteen minutes. Do the easiest ones first.

Ken

Quote from: Ken S on July 23, 2014, 01:58:11 AM
Great post, Mike.  I had just sat down at my computer with me SE-76 in hand.  The front surface was a bit rough.  A couple minutes with a six inch second cut mill file and the roughness was gone.  Another five minutes removed a ridge in the inside rear surface.  My method seems adequate; Mike's is superior.

Kenny, you seem quite stressed.  Have you tried slowly sharpening  a 3/4" chisel?  I hate to sound like a broken record, but all you write about are out of square quarter inch chisels. If you take the time to work through the bug with an easier wider chisel, with practice you will soon be up to speed.  Once you get the hang of it, I don't think you will have any trouble meeting your deadline.  Change your mindset to doing the easiest tool first, one at a time.  Think just one tool. With practice you should be able to sharpen most chisels in ten to fifteen minutes. Do the easiest ones first.

Ken

Yes,  I've just tried a 3/4" chisel.  First I trued the stone.  I applied force to the micro adjust leg before I tightened the screws, and made several passes.  Then I put my 2" square on the surface.  The 6 thou gap at the outer edge to about 3/4" in from the edge was not acceptable. so I reset the support by putting pressure on the non micro-adjust leg.  This cured the mjajority of the gap but I still have a very gap at the edge.

Next I tried Mike's lapping of the SE76 face with a brand new block of granite, and papers up to 1200 grit. 
Once I was happy with that I squared the 3/4" chisel in the jig using my 2" square to the front face, and put it on the T-7.

I put hardly any pressure at all, and made a few passes. and you know what.  I'm still getting a considerable  skew to the right ( handle towards me, looking down on the chisel from above).   and I'm utterly fed up.  I simply cannot waste any more time on something that clearly does not perform as the marketing hype claims.  The fact that there are so many things to check and things that could interfere with the operation that the instructional information does not cover causes me huge concern.

I would like to address some of the points made by kennyk in post #33.

"My point about the Universal support is that it is possible to align or misalign (at this stage I still don't know which) it by putting pressure on the leg without the micro adjust before tightening both screws.  Yet nobody has taken me up on this and I'm feeling that it's being glossed over.   it's not when the height is adjusted. it's when locking it in position."

I find it difficult to understand why you would pull up or push down on the end of the usb. Of course due to the necessary difference between the inside diameter of the holding sleeves and the outer diameter of the usb legs there must be a small difference and any external pressure will cause the usb to cant by a small amount. Why would you do the above?

If the usb and the wheel surface are not bang on parallel then you will have great difficulty in getting anything square, so why induce and error by applying pressure to the usb?

Jeff the Moderator has already advised, and so did I as per yesterday's procedure, that when setting the height, apply downward pressure (it is only finger pressure) directly above the threaded leg and this causes the usb to sit on the micro-adjuster. Clamp that leg, then the other.

When both usb legs have been clamped, pulling up and down on the usb horizontal arm will induce a small deflection, which I suspect is more from the body of the machine than my strength in bending a 10mm steel bar

I have just done the following test. With both legs clamped and the top of the usb bar 36mm above the wheel, I could pull up and press down and cause the bar to be 0.5mm up and down. That takes a fair force which I would not do in normal use.

Despite my views, above, I have also just undertaken your request:-

"To over exaggerate the phenomenon, I'd like somebody to loosen the locking screws, torque the support bar either by putting pressure on the leg without the micro adjust ( the left one if the power switch is to the rear of the machine) or by pulling the outer edge of the support bar up and locking the non-adjust leg first.   Once it's in that position, I'd like someone to grind a bevel and report back whether it is square.   Then I'd like them to loosen the support locking screws again, put downward pressure on the outer edge of the bar and re-lock as before and run the same grinding test."

I used a depth gauge from the top of the usb to the wheel - it was easier than trying to get the vernier beneath the usb.

When I locked the smooth leg, pulled up on the end of the usb (machine beginning to lift off bench), and then locked the threaded leg I got 0.5mm difference between inside and outer side.

If I locked the smooth leg, pressed down on the usb and then locked the threaded leg I could induce a difference of 1.5mm. I should point out that the forces I applied would not be applied in normal life!

I then dropped the usb down on to the wheel,and confirmed that the usb was consistent with the wheel as per yesterday's post.

With the usb resting on the wheel, if I then locked the smooth leg only, and lifted up the end of the usb so the machine was just being lifted, I could measure a gap of 0.75mm at the outside and 0.25mm at the inside.

If I then locked both legs and re-lifted by the end of the usb, I could measure 0.1mm at the outside and zero at the inside.

Conclusion - When the usb is locked it takes quite a load on the usb to cause a deflection.

I didn't bother trying to do any grinding because if I induced a 1.5mm offset in the usb I would expect to get skewed results.

Regarding your post #45, if I was getting a skewed grind, I would not apply pressure to, or re-adjust one leg, of the usb.

I would apply more finger pressure to the side of the chisel needed to square it up.

If that didn't work, I would ease and retighten the clamps of the SE-76 as these can induce twist.

If that didn't work I would re-align the chisel in the SE-76 as it could be the 'bicycle wheel' effect as posted previously.

Some time ago I posted about having some 3d modelling done with very small angular changes (typically 0.5 ~ 2.0 degrees) applied to a chisel in two planes, against another curved surface (wheel). This showed that very small angular differences at the SE-76 can induce apparently large effects at the end of the chisel.

Kenny.  To isolate the problem I've suggested (in another thread) that one of the forum members hooks up a Skype or face time call with you to coach you through the process.  It might be that there is a flaw somewhere with your particular machine and this may throw light on that.

I believe Stig would normally take this approach but regrettably the Scandinavian Holiday pattern has come at just the wrong time.

I would suggest one of the US based chaps help you out due to the time zone and cultural alignment.

QuoteI find it difficult to understand why you would pull up or push down on the end of the usb. Of course due to the necessary difference between the inside diameter of the holding sleeves and the outer diameter of the usb legs there must be a small difference and any external pressure will cause the usb to cant by a small amount. Why would you do the above?

If the usb and the wheel surface are not bang on parallel then you will have great difficulty in getting anything square, so why induce and error by applying pressure to the usb?

Jeff the Moderator has already advised, and so did I as per yesterday's procedure, that when setting the height, apply downward pressure (it is only finger pressure) directly above the threaded leg and this causes the usb to sit on the micro-adjuster. Clamp that leg, then the other.

As I pointed out in my previous post, when I did as Jeff advised and ran the truing tool across the surface I got a gap at the outer edge of the stone when I put my 2" square against it. By gap I mean over 6 thou at the outer edge, which tapers to nothing 3/4" in from the edge.  By putting pressure on the other leg before clamping and running the truing tool I do not get the same result.

Every single chisel yields this result.

I'd welcome some thoughts.

(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b178/f_rev/Mobile%20Uploads/20140723_124325.jpg) (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/f_rev/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20140723_124325.jpg.html)

(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b178/f_rev/Mobile%20Uploads/20140723_124229.jpg) (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/f_rev/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20140723_124229.jpg.html)

Quote from: kennyk on July 23, 2014, 01:35:25 AM
Also, I'm currently of no mind to put the grading stone anywhere near the wheel, as there is no way to guarantee that I'm not going to take it out of true at this stage, and undo the work of the truing tool and I KNOW that it has curved the grinding edge of the wheel badly before, to the point that it needed 8 passes with the truing tool.

You have to use the stone grader to dress the surface of the grindstone.  If it's putting the grindstone out of true then you have a defective grindstone.

Quote from: KSMike on July 23, 2014, 01:49:21 AM
Kenny, where are you located?  I wonder if there's anyone nearby who could help.

I'm near Glasgow.  The school itself is in East Renfrewshire but  I live in North Lanarkshire.

Quote from: Herman Trivilino on July 23, 2014, 03:14:19 PM

Quote from: kennyk on July 23, 2014, 01:35:25 AM
Also, I'm currently of no mind to put the grading stone anywhere near the wheel, as there is no way to guarantee that I'm not going to take it out of true at this stage, and undo the work of the truing tool and I KNOW that it has curved the grinding edge of the wheel badly before, to the point that it needed 8 passes with the truing tool.

You have to use the stone grader to dress the surface of the grindstone.  If it's putting the grindstone out of true then you have a defective grindstone.

Perhaps I'm looking at this from the wrong angle.    I'm used to flattening Waterstones to tolerances where if there is any light whatsoever showing between the surface and a square, then it's not flat enough.

The last time I  tried putting force on the stone grader I succeeded in curving the surface of the grindstone,  I can only presume because it rocked slightly or I put too much pressure on one side at a time?   Am I using too much force?

To me the phrase "Apply Light Pressure" in the instructions is somewhat meaningless.  There is no point of reference. Is it enough pressure to say, leave a thumbprint in a blob of blutac? or do I want to make a dent or full thumb impression?

Didn't realise you were in Scotland.  One thing that occurs to me.  Why do you need the whole bevel ground?  If your students are just paring mostly then could you not get away with a (say) 1 mm microbevel at a higher grind than the existing bevel (say 30 degrees)?

Then you would have significantly less grinding to do (I'm not a fan of grinding entire bevels with the Tormek), the edge would still be sharp and more hand controllable to keep straight.

But coming back to the original issue, are you saying you're unable to get the usb to be parallel to the wheel even after you've trued it with the diamond dresser, even by applying judicious pressure on the usb legs at tightening time?

Because if you cant do that then there must surely be something wrong with the usb threads or the inserts into which they're threaded?

Quote from: kennyk on July 23, 2014, 03:25:50 PM

Quote from: Herman Trivilino on July 23, 2014, 03:14:19 PM

Quote from: kennyk on July 23, 2014, 01:35:25 AM
Also, I'm currently of no mind to put the grading stone anywhere near the wheel, as there is no way to guarantee that I'm not going to take it out of true at this stage, and undo the work of the truing tool and I KNOW that it has curved the grinding edge of the wheel badly before, to the point that it needed 8 passes with the truing tool.

You have to use the stone grader to dress the surface of the grindstone.  If it's putting the grindstone out of true then you have a defective grindstone.

Perhaps I'm looking at this from the wrong angle.    I'm used to flattening Waterstones to tolerances where if there is any light whatsoever showing between the surface and a square, then it's not flat enough.

The last time I  tried putting force on the stone grader I succeeded in curving the surface of the grindstone,  I can only presume because it rocked slightly or I put too much pressure on one side at a time?   Am I using too much force?

To me the phrase "Apply Light Pressure" in the instructions is somewhat meaningless.  There is no point of reference. Is it enough pressure to say, leave a thumbprint in a blob of blutac? or do I want to make a dent or full thumb impression?

I must say, if I'm regrinding an entire bevel (that's usually a fair bit of steel) I WANT the stone to be as abrasive as poss.  The stone is at its optimal cutting quality directly after truing.  So why grade with the SP650?  Grade with that SP650 AFTER the stone has lost its cutting action not before.  By grading a diamond trued stone even with the rough side is actually lessening the cutting action as well as putting the trueness at risk with a hand operation.

Here's another tip that works really well for me.  Buy a cheap diamond T type dresser (about £8).  Run the usb up to about 1mm away from the wheel and rest the dresser on the usb and square on to the wheel then gently apply pressure.  That thing will shift a lot of ceramic off the wheel and it will necessarily be parallel to the usb.  You can see it all by eye as you do.  It achieves two things:
1/ you rejuvenate the cutting quality of the wheel very fast
2/ its all visible as its within view because the usb is so close to the wheel that by eye you can check the parallelism as you go whereas with the diamond truing tool, its more slick sure, but the usb is way above the stone and the truing tool is hanging off it upside down and you cant judge by eye how its progessing in terms of parallelism.

by the way pm me your batphone number if you want to talk this through.  I'm going to Jersey tomorrow so wont be able to help after tonight. 

Quote from: Rob on July 23, 2014, 03:27:06 PM
Didn't realise you were in Scotland.  One thing that occurs to me.  Why do you need the whole bevel ground?  If your students are just paring mostly then could you not get away with a (say) 1 mm microbevel at a higher grind than the existing bevel (say 30 degrees)?

Then you would have significantly less grinding to do (I'm not a fan of grinding entire bevels with the Tormek), the edge would still be sharp and more hand controllable to keep straight.

But coming back to the original issue, are you saying you're unable to get the usb to be parallel to the wheel even after you've trued it with the diamond dresser, even by applying judicious pressure on the usb legs at tightening time?

Because if you cant do that then there must surely be something wrong with the usb threads or the inserts into which they're threaded?

All of the chisels I've been working on have been ground at random angles, and all have badly convex edges.  The previous tech used a worn oilstone as well which didn't help either.   I'm trying to get them all uniform, as I feel it's fairest on all the kids that have to use them that they get consistent chisels.

After truing, I measured the wheel edge using the side as the reference for my square.  I'd need to re-do it and check with the usb again to be 100% I'm not giving misinformation.

the threaded leg is at 90% to the bar, and the bar itself seems straight too.

Is it possible that the truing tool itself is out of alignment?

Just to clarify, I wasn't using the stone grader  directly after truing.  it was when I checked the stone with a square later on (after a few gradings) that I discovered the convex surface.

In the photos, you're assuming the old bevels are perfect, and it appears to me they are not.

If you try to correct a .006 deviation by torquing the Universal Support, you will undoubtedly waste time and effort and cause yourself a great deal of frustration. That amount of deviation can be corrected by moving your thumb from the middle to the long point edge.

You are going to have to give up on the idea that every component is in perfect alignment and the tool comes out perfectly. You are dealing with an abrasive. The cutting action will change as the stone is used. It is not, nor will ever be, completely uniform in cut across the surface or through it's depth.

Quit worrying about getting the stone out of true with the stone grader. The stone grader is an absolutely essential piece of the puzzle. I promise you, if you rely on finger pressure and leaving the short point off the stone, checking the results while working, you can create a perfectly square edge on a grindstone that is badly out of alignment with the Universal Support. I have done it thousands and thousands of times. I'm not condoning leaving your stone in such a condition, just pointing out that perfect alignment does not guarantee success, but misalignment doesn't preclude it.

Kenny.  I've texted you my contact details.  By all means call me if you like.  Cheers.  R

"As I pointed out in my previous post, when I did as Jeff advised and ran the truing tool across the surface I got a gap at the outer edge of the stone when I put my 2" square against it."

I would suggest this is the first issue to be resolved. After using the truing tool, the surface of the wheel should be parallel to the usb. Ignore the side of the wheel and using a square against a side which you cannot guarantee, and plays no part in the sharpening process.

Do not apply any offset pressure to the usb when setting the height for the truing tool.

I feel that you are moving from one issue to another and certainly gets me confused.

Resolve the above fundamental requirement. Until that is resolved you'll be chasing your tail with no fixed reference.

I've just chatted to Kenny on the phone en route from school to home. Hopefully we'll have a dialogue later and see if we can punch through some of the variables.

Kenny, you asked about the amount of pressure you apply against the grindstone with either a tool or the stone grader.  In either case you push as hard as you want.  The harder you push the greater the cutting action.  With the stone grader apply lots of force, don't be afraid you're pushing too hard.

Look at the YouTube videos featuring Jeff Farris.

As Jeff (Moderator) said the trick is to apply more force to the long point side.  You should be able to produce shiny bevels that will wow those kids.  They will think all chisels are that sharp.

Kenny, do you realize that this is not [oops, read "now", thanks, Rob] the sixth longest (most responses) thread on the forum? (check the forum stats).  Good topic.

Ken

ps After your schedule relaxes, I hope you post some information about the program at your school.

you mean this IS he 6th longest I'm guessing?

After some more experimenting this morning, I am now convinced that there is something wrong.
I've squared the chisel in the jig, checked the usb is level with the wheel, set the height without putting any pressure on either leg when tightening.

After taking a few passes, the sharpie is wearing away on the same side.  I then put massive finger pressure on the side of the bevel that was untouched, and  the sharpie  ink is still not wearing off where I'm putting pressure.


I tried jigging up the skew chisel jig to run freehand against the usb but I managed to skew in the opposite direction because, in my opinion this jig is fundamentally flawed in design as well. there's no way to reference the side of the chisel is square in the jig, so there's no way on this earth I could guarantee that the skew angle I think I'm getting is the one I am actually getting.   
It is impossible to get a chisel level when the thumbscrew on the top is so far over to one side that it introduces a turning moment on the chisel as soon as it is tightened.  it doesn't help that the v-jaws dont grip the  sides of the chisel properly either.

I'm out of ideas and patience.

A further update.

The ONLY way I can get anything remotely approaching a square edge is by repeatedly skewing the chisel in the SE-76 away from the registration edge and adjusting this skew.

the latest result was when looking down on the chisel in the jig, back of the chisel up, handle towards me that the chisel was pointing slightly left. using a square there was about 1.5mm gap at the top of the square to the side of the chisel.

What does that tell you?

Are you still working with the 1/4" chisels? Did you see everyone's advice to start with wider tools first?

If you undertook the same tests as I did a couple of days ago, did you get similar measurement accuracy? That is the first thing to be clarified.

If the usb is bang on parallel with the wheel surface after truing, ie no light when usb rests on the wheel, and when the usb is clamped at the appropriate height to suit the required sharpening angle and the wheel to usb distances match the accuracies as per my measurements, I would suggest the following.

Pick a reasonably wide chisel 3/4" -1", ensure that the back is flat and no twist along its length (as best as you can ascertain - and you would be surprised how many are not great). A small twist between the part of the blade where it is clamped in the SE-76 and the area to be sharpened will show as skewed grinding. I have several, and I live with it.

Flatten and polish the back of the chisel for the last inch or so. I do mine on waterstones and then finish polish them on the leather wheel of the Tormek. Once that area is polished you should not need to touch the back again.

We are unlikely to have the necessary equipment to prove that the front face of the SE-76 (which is also likely to be rough from casting) is exactly parallel to the axis through the two mounting holes. Likewise we are unlikely to confirm that the reference edge inside the SE-76 is exactly orthogonal to the axis of the mounting holes. However we can proceed despite these unknowns. (Or in the words of Donald Rumsfeld - "there are known unknowns")

The side of the chisel may have a slight concave/convex shape so don't push against the reference shoulder in the SE-76. Put the chisel in the middle with say 50mm sticking out from the jig.

When clamping the chisel, bring the SE-76 clamp down lightly onto the chisel. Use a small square from the front face of the SE-76 to the side of the chisel, but be aware this is only a starting guide not an absolute angle guarantee.

Looking at the chisel end on against the light, see if there is any light showing between the back of the chisel and the SE-76, and likewise between the clamp and the bevel side of the chisel. Adjust clamps evenly so not inducing any twist, ensuring that when clamped the chisel is still at the perceived 90 degrees.

Set the grinding angle eg 25 degrees, fixing the usb as previously detailed with a finger above the threaded rod when clamping. Felt tip mark the chisel area to be ground and do a few strokes and check what is happening.

Because the chisel cutting edge of the blunt chisel is probably not square, and the plane of the bevel also angled so introducing more compound angles, then any shiny area of fresh grinding will probably initially show up as out of kilter. As per your previous photos this may appear ovalled rather than trapezoidal or as desired rectangular.

I would also keep going until I have a full width shiny area and up to the edge of the chisel. The reason for this is that I am then dealing with my grinding, not what was there, or half and half.

Assuming that the usb and wheel surface are bang on, then any skewing is almost certainly down to twist in the chisel; twist by offset pressures in clamping the SE-76, or most probably due to angular mis-alignment even by a very small amount ie the chisel is not at 90 degrees to the axis of the SE-76 mounting holes. This last effect is also most probable because we do not have means of checking absolute angles as explained earlier, and we set the chisel at a perceived 90 degrees.

Throughout all grinding I would frequently re-apply felt tip marker and check what is happening.

To try and correct skewed grinding I would first try applying more finger pressure to one side of the chisel and see if that induced minimal twist would yield the desired answer. You have to think carefully which side to apply pressure, and you are trying to reduce the long side of the chisel. It is easy to take the SE-76 with chisel off the usb, look at it upside down or back to front, and apply pressure to the wrong side.

If unsuccessful, (and because I would expect the angular error to be the problem) I would ease the SE-76 clamps, and adjust the chisel angle by a minimal amount - we are talking 1 degree effects being noticeable here -  re-clamp and try again.

This is a slow process initially but gets better with practice. Take care that the amount of chisel protruding from the jig hasn't changed much otherwise you have to reset the angle.

Also be aware of which angle, when added, or reduced, corrects the long side of the chisel.

It is not immediately obvious whether to add or subtract an angle to get the right answer. Try it several times as a separate learning curve and understand which way reduces the long side of the chisel and for why.

When it comes to checking the squareness across the end of the chisel, I sometimes check mine with a very small square, so that the error introduced by chisel side non-linearities is reduced. Also I tend to use the square only on the larger chisels, as eyeball square is more than adequate for the smaller ones and I do cabinet work.

I have not mentioned re-grading the wheel or using the leather wheel, as these are low down the priority list at this time.

By small angular movements of the chisel you should get a square end and parallel hollow ground bevel. It takes time, and without wanting to sound condescending, a load of patience.

By doing it from the middle of the SE-76, you are not reliant on the inside reference edge. You are also not relying on the front face of the SE-76 to give you 90 degrees. You are doing it by monitoring the effects at the area being ground.

You might think this methodology defeats the purpose of having a jig of this nature, and contrary to the sales videos. I have previously made my own comments in a similar manner, and I would not dispute it at the moment. What I am trying to do is give you a methodology to get success. Once you have this under your belt and getting confident that you can sharpen a blade proficiently, you then go back to using the reference edge and see how you get on. I didn't use my reference edge for quite some time, but lately have gone back to using it and it does work.

I do not want to be rude, but I could comment that I would not expect school kids to appreciate the squareness of a chisel, or the standard of work they probably achieve warrants it etc. etc. but that is inappropriate at the moment as like other contributors I am trying to help you up the learning curve. But is worth re-assessing what is an adequate standard to be achieved in the short term.

I am on the east coast, but I am not in a position to come and help as very tied up for the next month or so with wedding, family gatherings, club bbq organisation etc, so I will post when I can.

Quote from: kennyk on July 24, 2014, 01:13:00 PM
After taking a few passes, the sharpie is wearing away on the same side.  I then put massive finger pressure on the side of the bevel that was untouched, and  the sharpie  ink is still not wearing off where I'm putting pressure.

Is that the side that's the long point?

I'd like to see some pictures.  One with the blade of your square against the same long edge of the chisel that registers against the inside of the jig (with a light behind it), and another with the stock of the square against that same edge and the blade of the square against the end of the chisel.

It's unlikely, but not impossible, that we've got a defective jig here.

I just came from the shop after sharpening 2 new irons for a Stanley block plane and a Stanley 90.  The 90 was done first and I referenced on the long section at the rear of the plane when I placed in the jig.  I failed to use a square to see if the new blade as 90º  out of the box but I assumed it was.  When I mounted the new iron for the block plane I did check to see if it was square out of the box and it was. Also, the sides are straight.

With both irons the finished results skewed the edge so that it was not 90º to the side.  Both skewed in the same manner - so as the jig sits on the support the cutting edge sloops down to the right.

I could see this happening but thinking I can live with it and compensate when the iron in placed in the plane.  But the fact that they both skewed in the same direction makes me question my set-up and the reason I have read this post.  I will check the "squareness" of the support to the wheel and I will check the wheel and true as needed.  Other than this and the pressure on the iron while grinding (and other comments here and elsewhere) any other factor to investigate?
Tim

From time to time I watch Jeff's videos.  This morning I happened to watch his chisel sharpening video linked here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMCwG8xehGE

I think it makes sense to make sure we can get a basic very sharp edge.  Once we can consistently create a very sharp edge, then we can be concerned with the degree of squareness.   I do believe this is a two part process.  First the sharpness and then the finesse. I believe we are focusing on the finesse before we have solidly established the sharpness.  I believe we can benefit from watching (rewatching) Jeff, an accomplished Tormek expert, go through the process.

Ken

I want to follow-up on my comments from last night.  I have some measurements.

First, lowering the slide bar down to the stone I get a perfect fit;  if anything, the stone might be a smig concave in the middle. All blades had sides that are parallel with the opposite side.  The Record and block plane blades we brand new.

Over the last two days I sharpened  4 different blade types (but a total of 5 blades); all were set for 25º.  Here is some facts about the 4 different blade types:

                                                        width           thickness

Veritas (for bevel up use; 2)               2 3/16th          0.182

Record (for #4)                                 2                     0.0885

Stanley block plane                            1 3/8th            0.0785

Stanley 90                                            1                 0.121

None of these blades came out totally square but I would judge the Veritas blades to be nearly perfect. But as you can see, as the blade width and thickness decreases I observe a greater out of square result.  I am not sure what the take away is. I am not able to give a measurement of how much out of square it blade is but results were very noticeable when held up to a light and that the 90 may have been as much as double the error of the block plane iron.

The Stanley 90, while a bit thicker than the next 2 thicknesses, had the worst results. It has the smallest width.

All blades were systematically moved across the stone.

The blade jig was checked and its fence to the front edge is square.

I guess my conclusion is that the thinner the blade, the less width it had there will be a tendency to have an edge that is not square.  But I admit I may be drawing the wrong conclusion.  Anyone care to comment?
Tim

I'm just back from a trip to Jersey o find the current update. Given what you have to get through Kenny, whats next? If it were me in your shoes I would either fix the Viceroy and do them on that or do them by hand on the Tormek using a known protrusion (marked on the chisel with a marker pen) to rough the 25 degrees and then grind a micro bevel only.

In other words, the time has come to change plan.  I know you want your students to get a perfect looking bevel but unless we get another approach sorted they're not even going to have sharp tools which is actually dangerous.  So for me priority 1 is get a useable edge in a classroom setting.  It is entirely reasonable to hand/by eye grind a micro bevel of 1mm at roughly 25 deg (tolerance of say 20-30 degree would still work in a practical setting).

Meanwhile I would be in contact with the dealer of the Tormek to discuss the problem (and probably try out a replacement SE-76) or ensure the Viceroy is working so you can use that while you decide what the future holds.

Quote from: Ken S on July 25, 2014, 02:08:21 PM
From time to time I watch Jeff's videos.  This morning I happened to watch his chisel sharpening video linked here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMCwG8xehGE

I think it makes sense to make sure we can get a basic very sharp edge.  Once we can consistently create a very sharp edge, then we can be concerned with the degree of squareness.   I do believe this is a two part process.  First the sharpness and then the finesse. I believe we are focusing on the finesse before we have solidly established the sharpness.  I believe we can benefit from watching (rewatching) Jeff, an accomplished Tormek expert, go through the process.

Ken

I certainly don't see it that way.  I don't find it difficult to get things sharp on the Tormek, and coming from other systems, such as he did, I expect sharp isn't the problem.
It does sound like a bad jig to me. (that happens in any manufacturing process)

I have always believed that Tormek AB is a reputable company concerned with customer satisfaction.  As such, I cannot imagine that Tormek AB would want to let this situation go unanswered.  I realize that Sweden is on holiday until August 4. 

Kenny's problems with the school's new Tormek are certainly well documented.  They are not only well documented; they are documented on Tormek's own worldwide forum.  I don't know how much of the problem may be due to problems with the individual Tormek unit and how much of the problem may be due to  operator error or inexperience. I would like to know, as I believe would many of the forum members.

I would like to see the UK Tormek troubleshooter, instructor set up a time to visit with Kenny at the school and isolate the problem.  The troubleshooter should have a replacement unit with him in case the problem is the school's unit. This should be done soon.

Whether the problem is in the Tormek unit or with operator error/inexperience, the troubleshooter should be prepared to coach Kenny until he is proficient with the Tormek unit. This should not be a hurry up quick overview; it should be a solid training session lasting until Kenny is confident with the Tormek.

The troubleshooter should also be authorized to refund the school's money and retrieve the Tormek.  I would hope this option would not be needed, as I feel the school could be well served with a properly used Tormek.

This customer needs to become a satisfied customer.  This has become one of the longest and most intense posts on the forum.  I want it to have a well explained and happy ending.

Stig, I hope you will become involved in this.  This incident will either confirm Tormek's commitment to customer service or leave many doubts about the Tormek product. I look forward to my ongoing faith in Tormek AB being reaffirmed.

Ken

A noble goal indeed Ken and I also hope it takes that direction. However, having spoken with Kenny I got a sense of how deep his frustration is.  Perhaps Stig or one of his team can turn it round but I think young Kenny may have been lost by now as my guess is his good will has been stretched too far.  The situation was significantly exacerbated by the holiday schedule because there's just no resource available to help even though I don't doubt they would have been willing.

If it transpires the jig was indeed faulty rather than operator error (and that certainly sounds the case) then if that were my company I would actually courier the chisels to base at my cost and do them in the factory in addition to making amends with respect to any faulty parts.  Only will such a good will gesture solve the real problem which is his looming deadline for getting the job done.

Hi,
Back online and sad that this is happened during our vacation. We try to give 24 hours help normally.
I will try to get to Kenny during the day and call him up.

Thanks to all you guys to give him your help, great to see.

Stig

I have known for some time that Sweden has quietly listened to what we say.  This is a case for direct action.  I am pleased Stig has answered the call, as I expected.  Let's hope for a positive resolution.

Ken

Hi Guys.  Apologies for the lack of communications over the last few days.

I'm pleased to report that I'm starting to make some progress.

However I'd like to address one of the main issues that I've been harping on about.  Namely the USB, and the play on the legs.    Jeff's advice to press down on the microadjust leg has been in part causing me a large proportion of my problems with the skew.

Last Thursday I packed up the T-7, a 2" square, a Sharpie, and a tray of 4 x 1" Chisels, 4 x 3/4" Chisels and 5 x 2" Plane blades from some No 4 Stanley Smoothing planes  and took them home.
I set up the Tormek outside on my Patio on my old Black & Decker Workmate, had a Barbeque and a couple of beers.

My work area in the school has no natural light which makes seeing what is actually going on more difficult, but outside in the natural daylight it's a lot easier.

Anyway.  here's two pictures for you to look at.

The first is after locking the USB with pressure on the Microadjust
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b178/f_rev/tormek/chisel1.jpg) (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/f_rev/media/tormek/chisel1.jpg.html)

Here's the photo after putting pressure on the other leg and locking:
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b178/f_rev/tormek/chisel2.jpg) (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/f_rev/media/tormek/chisel2.jpg.html)


So it's clear that the play is having an effect on the alignment of the chisel.

Once I'd discovered this, my results made a bit more sense. 
In the fairly lengthy phone conversation I had with Rob  (Thanks again, Rob!)  I gleaned a lot of useful information.  Perhaps the most useful two words he said was "sore thumbs".  Which gave me a lot of information regarding the required pressure.

What I discovered with the post-barbeque evening sharpening session was a methodology which has allowed me to get a very slight convex edge, which is reliably, and repeatably square.
Whether it was the outdoor atmosphere or the Stella Artois, I don't know.  However, what I've been doing is what I can only describe as 'Chasing the Curve' of the edge.   Perhaps I'm checking the edge with a square a little too often, but I'm grinding for no more than 20 seconds before removing the SE-76 from the USB and checking with a square.    Then I'm applying pressure on the subsequent grind where the high spot was, before removing again and re-checking.  I find that I don't need the sharpie for anything other than the initial check, and can chase the edge until it's close enough. 

The other things I've discovered are that any bizarre grinding behaviour is also likely to be down to partial glazing of the stone surface, which seems to be more critical than ensuring that it is perfectly flat - as extra pressure seems to compensate better for out-of-true than it does for finer grit areas on the stone.  Once I'd learned that, a quick regrading seems to help.

However,  things that I've learned, are things I've had to learn myself, and weren't covered in any of the videos I've watched.  And if anything can be learned from this whole saga it's that the instructions provided on the DVD don't tell anything like the whole story of how to overcome the types of issues I've encountered as a new user to the Tormek system, especially as the DVD gives the impression that it's far, far, simpler than the reality I've encountered.

I don't know if my methodology is correct, but at least I'm getting somewhere.  On that first session I got all the chisels and Plane blades I brought home done, and another Clifton 2 3/8" plane blade accurate enough that I'd use it for jointing spruce or hardwood boards for guitar making.

Today I managed to do around 7 x 1" chisels in well under an hour.   I'm going to try some 1/2" chisels tomorrow....  :o

Ah, ha! I believe you have found the winning recipe for using the Tormek, very good light and very good beer.  Just kidding about the beer.  You certainly earned a couple right sized pints!

In the olden days, we used to use feeler gages to set the gap on ignition points.  Using that same concept, if we use wooden "feeler gages" ("gauges" to those with the proper sized pints), we can easily feel if the support bar is parallel with the grinding wheel when set at the right distance. It makes sense to me to avoid a lot of up and down movement of the support bar.  Set it accurately and leave it.  No measuring necessary after that.

Isn't working in natural light pleasant?  Being a lifelong photographer I'm biased in favor of soft outdoor light.

When you get caught up, how about telling us a little about your school woodworking program?

Do keep us posted,

Ken

I have just been catching up with this thread, and pleased to see that kennyk has made some initial progress.

Regarding previous comments about contacting distributers for help and/or training, I phoned D & M Tools , a distributer of Tormek and they do not do Tormek training. Brimarc the UK importer advised that they likewise do not undertake Tormek training as people would not pay the price. They have a representative who may be in Scotland possibly every 12 weeks or so, and if contacted that person may call in to a customer who has reported problems. I don't think kennyk (or indeed anyone else) can hold his breath that long!

I had some problems trying to understand the perspective of kennyk's photos, and did wonder if the SE-76 is different to the one I have. It was the alignment of the right hand side of the bush and the right angled aluminium behind it which on my unit are both in line.

Regarding the first picture showing the light under the chisel edge - How was the chisel sharpened? If it was sharpened on the Tormek, then why would the light start showing through?

Although the photos are taken very close (depth of field and resolution issues) the surface of the wheel does not look flat to me.

Regards the glazing, this is countered by use of the regrading stone.

Also I still do not understand why kennyk still has a problem with play in the usb. If the usb is locked on both legs the how can there be play? He dismisses the locking of the usb as previously advised by Jeff and also the methodology I described. By applying some pressure to the usb above the threaded leg with micro-adjuster, then you are fixing the height reference as it is butted against the shoulder. If you apply pressure to the unclamped smooth leg, then an unspecified of skew will be induced.

Also if kennyk could do some measurements regarding the distance between the usb and the wheel surface it would demonstrate (like the measurements I posted) if the two remain parallel.

TimH - Interesting post. I'm not in a position for a while to try some tests and see if I get the same conclusion.

With regard to Stickan's comment that Tormek try to give help within 24 hours - Is this by means of this Forum, or if customers contact them direct? I was unaware that Tormek would address problems posted on this Forum. (There have been plenty of SE-76 issues posted over the last couple of years, and not aware these have been directly addressed by Tormek.)

Keep at it kennyk.

I'm going to try to explain this one a bit more clearly...

The issue is that the usb legs rattle inside the sleeves  to the extent that the weight of the chisel in the SE-76 is pulling the support down over the wheel, leaving the gap on one side of the chisel,  until it is corrected by pressure on the other leg, as shown in the second photo.   For the avoidance of confusion, this is PRIOR to tightening the locking screws.   Therefore if I mount the chisel correctly, slide the SE 76 onto the USB, adjust the angle and tighten the screws without further checking what I get is the first photo.  if I put pressure on the non-adjust leg before tightening, then I can now achieve a square grind.

(The chisel was previously sharpened on a Viceroy Sharpedge with a badly dished stone, causing a convex curve in the blade.  In fact every single one of the couple of hundred chisels sharpened by the previous technician on the equipment show the same curve.  I am trying to finally give the teaching staff a proper level of sharp equipment for the pupils to work with. )

I am still concerned about the amount of play between the sleeves and the support legs, as shown in the the gap in the first photo. 

Also, I've never managed to get a completely flat surface across the entire width of the stone.  In fact using the grading stone seems to exacerbate the curve.  In my conversation with Rob on the phone last week, he seemed (unless I have picked him up wrong)  to indicate that a bit of fall away at the corners was not an issue.   My experience over the last few days is that a good amount of finger pressure applied in the correct place, coupled with judicious and frequent checking with a square can more than compensate for this.   However it cannot compensate for a misalignment of the chisel edge to the stone due to the misalignment of the USB prior to tightening the locking screws.

Edited to add another thought:

The weight of the USB on it's own does not show the issues as much, so the usb will sit parallel to the stone surface.
Further the TT-50 is much lighter so does not cause the cantilever effect that the SE-76 loaded with a chisel does.

RobinW:

If you should send an e-mail to the support mail (support@tormek.com) we will normally answer within 24 hours during weekdays. I have not been so active at this forum but there is no bigger difference being here or at a fair or store demos these days. I do travel a lot bur try to check out the forum some times during the week.

Thanks for the explanation Kenny. If I get a chance this week I'll see what my kit does as a comparison.

When tightening the USB, I've always applied pressure to the non-micro adjust leg (or really in between the two legs to put pressure on both), because it just seems to make sense to offset the cantilevered weight of the long horizontal rod before tightening.  IMO there has to be some play in the sleeves, otherwise it would be too fiddly to adjust easily.

I've had a quick look at the play in my usb where it enters the sockets on the main body. Without locking either clamp there is a small amount lateral of play at the non-threaded leg of about 0.5 mm (eyeball). I would expect that sort of play otherwise it would be difficult to move up and down.

When I fitted the SE-76 I couldn't say that it was noticeably loading the usb downwards.

I could press down on the non-threaded leg and get a small deflection. angular deflection at the chisel edge.

Without having either leg clamped, pulling up the non-threaded leg, or the opposite end of the usb was liable to cause vertical displacement as opposed to angular displacement - not a worthwhile test really.

Without a third hand or fourth hand, I could not decently measure the effect of load caused by the SE-76 to the unclamped usb, but it was very very small.

Having gone back and checked the long sides of some chisels for straightness, most would probably cause an equal amount of error as the deflection of the usb.

Would any others care to comment on the play or deflection in their usb?

I have verified that if I turn the micro adjuster so the USB is a certain distance above the grindstone and then tighten both locking screws the position is precise.  That is to say, repeatable.  The variation is too small for me to measure, certainly within any tolerance needed.  As I've said before, applying pressure on one side or other of the tool will create more variation in grinding than any adjustment I make to the USB or any other part of the Tormek.

If the grindstone is not true, or the tool is not mounted squarely in the jig, then I can't get a square edge on a chisel or plane iron.

If the grindstone is true, and the tool is mounted squarely in the jig, then it's still possible to get an edge that's not square.

In other words a trued grindstone and a squarely mounted tool are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for getting a square edge.  You must also take care and apply more pressure to the long point when grinding.

Would two threaded rods and 2 Micro adjustment Knobs work for a finer adjustment. I was thinking a while back about threading the other leg and adding a bolt to it. Just a thought.

Interesting thought, Tony.  However, it might be overkill for the use intended. Herman threaded his support bar.  It can be done.  I would suggest reading the new topic I just posted before getting out a thread die.

Ken

Quote from: KSMike on July 29, 2014, 12:44:32 AM
When tightening the USB, I've always applied pressure to the non-micro adjust leg (or really in between the two legs to put pressure on both), because it just seems to make sense to offset the cantilevered weight of the long horizontal rod before tightening.  IMO there has to be some play in the sleeves, otherwise it would be too fiddly to adjust easily.

I agree,  however it is my feeling that there is too much play in the sleeves.  Tightening the non-adjust leg also moves it front to back by around half a mm, which can also skew the usb above the wheel.  If I get the chance I'll experiment with some masking on the support legs.   However it's not going to be for a couple of weeks I suspect.


In other developments, I've been moving forward with some 1/2" and 3/8" (and 10mm) chisels.  I'm still getting a bit of skewing but I can correct this with huge pressure on the long point.  it's the point closest to the inside of the wheel.   I'm starting to suspect that the previous grinding is having some bearing on this.  If I ever find a blade that's squareish, I'll know more!   

However I'm able to do some troubleshooting now, so this whole saga has taught me that at least.  if I can't correct the skew I have a few things to try, and it's a case of getting a feel for the likely culprit. 
I've done nearly one whole classroom's worth of chisels.  Once I get the last of the 1/2"ers done I can start to tackle the 1/4". but most of these are firmers rather than bevel edged so that should help in terms of aligment problems.

Kenny,
Do you ever wonder if the invention of the skew chisel was really a botched job given a little spin by the "positive change management"?

I'm glad you are finally making progress.  Your frustrations have proved a learning experience for the forum. Good effort!

Please continue to keep us posted.

Ken

ps Many years ago I saw Duncan Pfyfe's tool chest on display in Williamsburg, Virginia.  It was behind glass, so I couldn't get a good look.  Duncan Pfyfe was probably the equal of any furniture maker in any era.  I would be curious to know how square his chisels are.  (I realize he may have had them sharpened by apprentices and who knows what happened after he died.)

kennyk - Glad to hear you are making more progress.

I sometimes find that due to the taper between the front and back faces of my firmer chisels they do not always clamp flat, so introducing the inevitable skew. However as you're climbing out of a dark hole you are now equipped to work out any issue.
Fore warned is fore armed.

kennyk -

KenS has started another topic 'tools for checking grinding wheel to support bar alignment'

I have added a variation using the SVD-110 Tool Rest. I have just used this and was surprised how error was introduced when tightening the usb clamps without any pressure, and likewise when applying different pressures. Small but no doubt annoying!

Assuming you have the SVD-110 Tool Rest, this should help you with alignment.

The uncorrectable skewing (with a correctly set chisel in the 76) has re-emerged after another truing with the TT-50.  During sharpening, the chisel slipped out of the 76 and gouged the wheel, necessitating a re-truing.  I only managed one chisel before it was time to finish up today, but in order to get a straight edge, I had to skew the chisel considerably. 

So I'm still convinced I have a problem somewhere. I'll need to check what's going on tomorrow. 

regarding the setting using the TT-100, it's not really of much use for most of the chisels I have because they're all far too short to use even the 55mm stop.

Sorry to leave you hanging, Kenny.  I was called up on grandfather duty helping my granddaughter practice the piano.

The use of the 55mm slot is not at all important.  The idea was to combine a known distance from the grinding wheel to the support bar and a known tool length projection.The 55mm slot is really for turning tools.  The projection length can be whatever works to give you the bevel angle you wish with the support bar distance you choose. The slot or end block is just there to make the distance repeatable without any need to measure.

The idea is repeatability.  Once the two distances are correct for the first tool, any number of tools can be ground the same way without any more measuring or adjusting being necessary. For many of us, myself included, repeatability is no big deal.  Sharpening three of four chisels occasionally does not require speed.  If I had your workload, I would definitely standardize. Incidentally, the correct projection distance for a twenty five degree bevel using the "A" setting with the TTS-100 is approximately 1 3/4" (forty something millimeters).

Using Robin's idea with the SVD-110, you are free to choose any distance you wish from the grinding wheel to the support bar.  I believe it makes sense, especially in your situation with so many chisels and planes to sharpen regularly, to pick a distance and stick with it.  As described in the handbook, you can easily make a wooden "feeler gauge" to return to that distance.  Check out the chisel sharpening you tubes on the Lie-Nielsen.com channel.  They show a simple and effective board with several pre set distances. The board would work just as well setting the tool with the Tormek.

The wooden feeler gauge might be adequate to check for parallel between the grinding wheel and the support bar.  I would suggest using Robin's idea with the SVD-110 as a double check until you either feel confident or not with the wooden feeler gauge.

Hang in there.

Ken 

I've had a look at the edge of the wheel against the 110. and it's convex, with a high point towards the middle.   I've tried truing it with a number of passes.  I've set the height as per the instructions and run the TT-50 back and forward a few times without adjusting the height.   There is definitely something wrong here because the diamond tip is still  catching the low point at the outer edge after several passes back and forth.  I'm starting to get really fed up with the machine again. At this rate I'm going to need a new wheel very soon.  It's down at 235 already because I can't get it level.

Is the TT-50 meant to rattle?  is there meant to be 0.5mm vertical play in the threaded square bar section that holds the diamond tip?

For the level of performance this machine promised,  the tolerances that I've enountered are shockingly bad, that it is very difficult to get an acceptable result.

I'll be honest. If I'd personally shelled out for this machine, It'd have gone back a long time ago.  I've not got one single chisel to an acceptably straight AND square enough edge that I'd use in my own guitar making workshop.   Even the plane blades are more convex than I'd like.  I'm used to getting far more accurate results with nothing more than Japanese waterstones, or 'Scary Sharp' (3M lapping films on float glass)

The further I get into this to troubleshoot, the more problems I'm experiencing.  With this level of vertical play in the TT-50  I cannot see how it is possible to correct the curve on the stone, as the tip has a tendendency to drop.

The trouble with the TT-30 dresser came up a couple years ago on the forum. Ionut, one of our very experienced members from Canada and sadly no longer active, suggested placing a zip tie through the compartment which holds the diamond to the threaded rod.  The tie goes through this and around the top of the jig. I did that and have never had a problem with the dresser.  The zip tie has just enough friction to dampen movement but not to prevent being able to move the diamond across the grinding wheel.

I agree, it does seem Mickey Mouse on a sharpening system in this price range.  however, I have not had a problem with it.

This solution was not endorsed by Tormek at the time, and is probably still not accepted. I submit it to you as a quick and inexpensive possibility. A hardware store should stock zip ties.  As a quick temporary fix if you can't locate zip ties, try door bell wire twisted or a plastic twist tie.

Ken

ps If you can't find good zip ties locally, Private Message me and I will mail you some.  Not a fast solution, but they are useful for many things.

Maybe a tested and known good SE-76, universal support bar and TT-50 overnighted from Sweden to Kenny in Scotland?  That would eliminate his equipment from the trouble equation.

Ken

I've just received a replacement SE-76 from Brimarc, the UK distributor.  I'm still getting the skew with every  single chisel.

The only way I can correct it is to physically pull the support bar up with my left hand as I work on the chisel in either SE-76 with the other hand.

I just checked my support bar.  When clamped, it is tight.  I don't detect any play.

I wonder if one of your clamps is not tightening properly.  Try placing the long rail of the support bar in one of your clamps and verify that it is indeed tight.  Then try the other clamp.  Also, make sure the cones which hold the clamping screws are tight.  (Try all four.) Do you have the same problem with the horizontal clamps?

If all these are tight, I think it's time for the rep who travels to Scotland every twelve weeks to quickly reroute his itinerary and visit you.

Ken

Yes, it is tight.  I'm wondering if it's got a slight downwards bend in it.

Besides the bend possibility, I would check for both bushings to be loose (see the tool diagrams on the Sharptools site), look at the welds of the bar (make sure you see no cracks), and am wondering about the hardening/annealing (not sure proper term) of the bar?

Kenny,

My two support bars are square when held up against a combination square. if yours isn't square, it's bent.

Ken

ps Maybe Tormek should hire you as a troubleshooter after all this. You certainly have experience with troubleshooting most of the common problems.

I've got a granite lapping block  http://www.axminster.co.uk/small-granite-surface-plate (http://www.axminster.co.uk/small-granite-surface-plate) which is probably as straight as I'm going to get.  when I put the usb up against it, with the legs upright, I'm getting a tapered gap that starts a couple of inches after the micro-adjust leg.  it's a bit tricky to measure but I managed to slip a 4 thou feeler gauge  (think that's about 0.1016mm) under the gap at around 3/4 of the way along.  it's not exact but there is definitely some light.   also it sometimes feels like there's a slight 'rock'  to it. but I was rushing a bit when I did it.
Due to the weld I can't tell if it's got bend in the other axis, as the support doesn't lie down flat on the granite.  Unfortunately I don't have an accurate enough straight edge.  I could use a 12" rule but I suspect its nowhere near accurate enough.

I'm planning to bring the T-7 home tomorrow night and spend most of next week when I am on leave to look at it.     

Did you mean the motor bushings? or something else that I should check?


Sitting down with a nice hot cup of Rooibos tea, (I've had my coffee quota for the day, 2pints of black!) I'm tryin to reason out what could be causing the problem.   The obvious one is user error.
The only other possibilities must now rest with the interfacing between the surface of the grindwheel and the edge to be sharpened.

So that means the areas I need to look at are:

a) bent support bar
b) support bar legs not 90 degrees
c) support bar not in correct alignment with the wheel. (squint)

the thing that I've noticed when I tighten the support legs is the tendency for the non-adjust leg to be pushed away from the screw (as one would expect).  What if the other leg isn't being pushed as far and it's introducing a squint that way?  as the microadjust is the pivot point, any point further away on the other side of the pivot would automatically show the opposite error but larger.  I could be barking up the wrong tree, but I'm now starting to clutch at straws trying to resolve this.

By bushing, I am meaning the sleeve the USB goes into.  (figure if loose at all, it could add more play to any bar issue)
I think if the ones on motor had play, you could see that in the stone when running.

What an amazing long lived tale.  Gotta hand it to you Mr. kennyk for sticking with it so long.

I think you are right on with what you need to check.  (Clutching at the correct straws, and barking up the right tree).  :)

The strange thing to me is that this is a very simple mechanical device, with only a couple of things that could affect alignment.  A wheel, a shaft, the control bar and the bar's attachment to the case.

I'm starting over a though I had not been following this. I suspect this has already been covered, but if  if I found myself in your shoes I would do this: 

1. You mentioned your last post that, "So that means the areas I need to look at are: a) bent support bar".  Well..., Is it or is it not?  Whatever it takes, you need to get that out of the way.  I mean, especially at this point, you really need to be able to completely and finally resolve that question first.

Is the control bar and it's legs all square, 90 degrees and straight?  That should not be that hard to verify absolutely, once and for all.  A square, micrometer, dial indicator, lay it on a flat surface or whatever.  Be sure to measure the distance between the two legs at the top and bottom of each to verify the one that is welded is square to the other. 

2.  Verify independently that that each of the sleeves on the top of the case that the control bar goes into are 90 degrees to the top of the case.  That could be a real head scratcher if they are askew!  Use a square and lay it on the top of the case next to each one.  Then, stick the long end of the control bar into each sleeve, one at a time.  Lay a square on top of the case next to the bar sticking vertically from the case and use a micrometer or a block of wood or anything to measure the distance from the bar to the square at the top and the bottom of the bar.  Considering the amount of skew that you are talking about, it should be obvious if there is an issue there.

3.  So, if the bar is straight and the mounting sleeves are straight, bolt the control bar into the machine as though you were going to use it, and test again for straightness as in #2.  A). Like you mentioned, does it go out of alignment when you tighten the control bar mounting screws? Push/pull on the end of the control bar when it's bolted in.  Is there some sort of movement or play?  B).  Check the alignment with the bar close to the when and when it's pulled up.  Does it change?

The strange thing here is that as long as the top of the control bar is straight and vertical movement of the bar up and down is straight, it should not matter what angle the bar horizontal relationship to the wheel is.  For example, if you rested the bar on the wheel and it touched the outside of the wheel but was oh, say, 10mm off the inside edge so that that bar was really jacked at an angle, as long as vertical movement was straight, the angle between the wheel surface and the bar would remain constant when the bar was raised.  Once you ground the wheel to be parallel to the bar it really wouldn't matter.  The bar and wheel surface would still be parallel.  It would be strange to work with, look odd, and you would have a strange angle shaped wheel, but it should still work just fine.

4.  Grab onto the grinding wheel with one hand and the honing wheel with the other.  Push/pull up on one down on the other.  Any movement there?  If there were, I suppose that could change the geometric relationship of the wheel/bar when the machine torques under running conditions.  You might not notice there is any play when the machine is just sitting because of the pressure of the drive friction wheel against the motor shaft unless you yank it around.  I think this unlikely, but if it were true, the angle of the grinding wheel could conceivably change when the machine was running.  I'm barking up trees and grasping at straws here too! :)

Good post, Grepper.  If, by chance, one or both of the vertical sleeves is not properly aligned, I would think it highly unlikely that the horizontal sleeves would also be misaligned.  If the support bar is properly aligned in the horizontal position, but hot the vertical position, I would suspect one or both of the vertical sleeves.  That doesn't seem very probable to me, but, I think it is another variable to quickly and easily rule in or out.  Sooner or later we will run out of variables. We will get to the bottom of this.

Ken

ps I couldn't think of the term "sleeves" yesterday.  You have been reading your handbook!  Carry on.

Thanks, Ken.  Kenny is talking about flat chisels, done with the control bar mounted vertically, right?  It could very well be that I missed something.  But either way, a lot of the principles are the same.   I have been more or less following it since the beginning and have not read every word.  Big post!  Is it the biggest?

I was struck by how long this has been going on, and how much work Kenny has put into trying to resolve it.  But you're right... I'm sure it will get resolved as long as he has the patience to stick with it.  Got to hand it to you Kenny!

Grepper, go back to :in the shop" and scroll down to "more stats".  This is the second longest post on the forum. The longest had 130 posts.  that thread should have been several unrelated threads.  (I remember it.) This one is much more focused and relevant.

Kenny gets the perseverance award!

Yes, chisels are normally ground in the vertical position.  However, I don't see why the horizontal position would not work.  It is slower.  At this point, if it works, it is actually faster! :)

I believe there is much in this post of benefit.

Ken

If kennyk does not have success in the next couple of days, he should return his machine to the supplier, or Brimarc as the importer, and get them to verify that the machine and its accessories meet specification (if defined).

Despite clawing his way up the learning curve, like we have all done, to me the most significant point at the moment is kennyk is still not achieving a flat surface across the width of the stone. Unless that is consistently achieved, the resulting sharpening and other issues are secondary.

If Brimarc do not have an expert available in Scotland to go and check out the machine on site, then Brimarc (on behalf of Tormek) should just exchange his machine. If they don't want to give him a new unit, give him a demonstration unit which has been checked out and proven so that if he gets skewed sharpening it would then point at operator error.

We are all guessing at the root cause, or causes, of kennyk's problems, and it is difficult without specific measurements and the elimination of the usual suspects one by one. Only then will a solution will not occur.

I agree, Robin.  Admittedly we don't know the full story, nor does Kenny at this point.  We are not even sure if the problem is the machine or the operator.  It is time to verify that the machine is either defective or functioning properly.  It is also time, if the machine is ok for someone in the Tormek chain to make sure Kenny is well coached in using it.

Judging from a map of the UK with red flags by the stockists covering the island, someone in the Tormek sales chain should be able to step up and solve the problem.  Also, judging from the lack of other similar complaints from the UK right now, it doesn't sound like the existing service people are overwhelmed with other customer problems.  I agree that a known good unit might even be superior to a brand new unit, assuming it doesn't have too many miles on the odometer.  It would be sporting to give Kenny the choice of new of demonstrator, and send an experienced demonstrator with the new unit to coach him.

This very long post will either bode well or ill for Tormek.  Until it is successfully resolved, if I was a prospective buyer, I might be hesitant to invest in something which might or might not work.  Someone in the Tormek chain needs to fix the problem, whether it is in the unit or the training of the operator. The resolution should happen soon.  This has dragged on for too long.

Ken

I think I'm getting closer to solving the issue.

I've used a couple of cable ties (zip ties ?)  on my TT-50 and have finally got a true wheel.   it was oval as well, which probably didnt help matters. 

After truing I'm still getting the same grinding pattern that I've been getting on the last 100 or so chisels.
To Rule out 100 identically wonky chisels I decided to attempt one that definitely had not been anywhere near the Viceroy so I dug out one of my Dad's old Stanley 5001 chisels, that I've used for guitarmaking. 
When I tried to sharpen it, I got the same skew appearing. so it's definitely not the legacy of the viceroy machine, or the chisels.

A square against the side of the wheel shows a tapered gap when the USB is resting against the wheel, which I think is the culprit.
To test my theory I started running everything in reverse.  So I took the USB and mounted it on the front of the machine like you would for the SVS-32.  Then I took the SE-76 and mounted the chisel upside down at the wrong end of the jig - completely away from the registration edge.  I ensured it was square, and got to work.

Bingo, straight edge.

So I tried it again with the second SE-76 that Stig had sent to me using a school chisel.  it's also straight, after a bit of mucking around- it wasn't entirely square in the jig first time.  So I tried another, my 5001 1/2".  That is also square.
I'm about to try another School 1/2".

However I now suspect that my vertical mounting sleeves are not parallel to the wheel, which would explain pretty much everything.  the curved blades as a result of fighting the skew.

Thoughts?

just thought I'd add this, to show what I mean


(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b178/f_rev/tormek/tormek-revised-setup.jpg) (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/f_rev/media/tormek/tormek-revised-setup.jpg.html)

Kenny, I applaud your sticktoitiveness and your diagnostic ideas.  Now that Sweden is back from holiday, I think it is time for Sweden to send you a known good factory tested unit.  I don't mean a new unit in the box; I mean a new unit which Stig or another experienced associate has taken out of the box and used to accurately sharpen several tools. a thoroughly overinspected unit! It should be sent to you with return shipping paid for your unit (assuming the second unit works for you). I would think quality control would want to examine your unit. I hope when that happens that Stig will post the results.

Whether the problem is with your unit, operator error, or a combination, this situation should be happily resolved. It will be a good learning situation for your students.

I look at the forum stats from time to time.  Usually the guests viewing the forum outnumber the online members by at least fifteen to one. That's a lot of potential Tormek buyers following your difficulties, Kenny.  I hope those who continue looking will see a successful result, as well as many more future posts from you sharing your discoveries.  You have certainly moved beyond Tormek 101.

Ken

I´m  in direct contact with Kenny also and have promised him that we will solve this.

Stig

Yesterday a person gave me a chisel to sharpen with a fine divot right in the center where he had hit a nail.  So I got the wheel nice an coarse and started grinding away.  Soon I noticed the chisel was getting out of square.  Exactly the same issue Kenny is having. 

Upon inspection it was easy to see what was happening.  One side of the bevel was not touching the wheel.  I didn't have time to mess around with it and try to find out exactly what the cause was, so I tried just pressing really had on the side of the chisel that wasn't contacting the wheel.  That didn't work.  I ended up getting it sharp and square by hanging the chisel half way off the wheel so I was only sharpening half the bevel at a time.  That worked, but it was a goofy thing to have to do.

Like I said, I didn't have time to muck around with it, but I thought it was interesting that it looks like I'll have to.

Kenny... You are not alone. :)

I mentioned checking the sleeves to see if they were tight.  I found a post here, that mentioned they should have some side to side play, due to minor differences in the USB (welding/heat can cause some issues).  I would see how hard it is to take them off completely, then reattach. (would also see if the metal housing under them is dimpled or something, causing it to not be parallel of if the sleeves themselves, off the machine, have an issue (angled instead of perpendicular drilled).
I second Ken's opinion of your attitude in finding the problem.

I looked inside my Tormek with the grinding wheel removed.  The sleeves appear to be held onto the frame with nuts.  The largest metric wrenches own are 19mm, too small for the nuts. 

Do the sleeves fit into precisely sized holes or are the holes oversized to allow for some adjustment?  If Kenny's sleeves are out of alignment, that might be the problem.

Ken

Quote from: Ken S on August 06, 2014, 05:11:13 PM
The sleeves appear to be held onto the frame with nuts.  The largest metric wrenches own are 19mm, too small for the nuts. 

I think I used a large crescent wrench when I took mine off recently:

http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=1886.msg10023#msg10023

QuoteDo the sleeves fit into precisely sized holes or are the holes oversized to allow for some adjustment?  If Kenny's sleeves are out of alignment, that might be the problem.

I don't think there's any play or adjustment.  Those slots are punched into the frame and that determines their locations. 

You may be onto something here, Ken.  Just now thinking about it.  The axis of the grindstone must be precisely parallel to the USB's horizontal rod.  If the position of those slots is off just a bit then no amount of adjustment or grindstone truing could make up for it, and it would produce the very type of issue experienced by Kenny.

I posted a few posts back that I sharpened a chisel and it ended up out of square.  The resolution to my issue was simple.  I put a square against the side and over the top of the grindstone and it was obviously not flat.  Additionally the bar did not lay flat against the stone. 

Truing the stone fixed it.  I have not sharpened another chisel yet, but I doubt there will be any problems.

As far as to Ken's idea that maybe the control bar mounting sleeves are not aligned, that's super easy to confirm.  Just lower the bar so it lays against the wheel and put a square against the side of the wheel and along the bar.

The thing that gets me about Kenny's problem is that it does not seem to me that it should be all that difficult to figure out.  By that I mean:

1.   Bar is straight and legs are straight and square.
2.   Stone is flat.
3.   Bar is square with the wheel.
4.   Chisel lays flat against the wheel

That has to work... Right?  Unless you do something really wonky when sharpening, it's almost hard to go wrong.

The first three are easy to check with a simple square.  The fourth is obvious.

Addition:  I guess the jig could be funky and not holding the chisel square with the wheel, but that would be easy to check with a straight edge against the side of the wheel, or just by looking at it.  I think that's unlikely... but could happen I guess. :)

Herman, if I had put two and two together, I would have remembered that you recently repainted your Tormek housing.  Of course you would have removed the support bar sleeves. another senior moment......

Kenny, how interesting that your horizontal sleeves work fine (wheel turning away from the blade).  That would indicate the wheel, support bar and jig are working properly. Grepper has some good thoughts.  This is starting to sound like a Sherlock Holmes case, where when almost everything else is ruled out, whatever remains, no matter how improbably, is probably the culprit.

Kenny, I believe you will experience a rare learning situation from this.  I have experience this perhaps three times.  The time which stands out is when I was starting to cut mats for photographs. The presentation of a photograph should not call attention to itself.  Neither should it detract from the photograph itself. The photograph should be mounted and matted pristinely and with high precision, just like you want your chisels to be square.

Most mats do not meet this standard. After frustration with framing stores doing poor work, I purchased a C&H mat cutter.  At the time it cost as much as two Tormeks.  My results were disappointing.  After several months of frustration and troubleshooting, I devised a technique which allowed me to obtain quite precise results very efficiently. I have not seen that technique used anywhere else.  Apparently there has never been a framer married to a machinist; the technique involves simple machine shop layout.

When I reached that level of proficiency, I was amazed with how quickly related problems could be solved. I had broken through a learning plateau.  It's quite an experience, and sadly, I think it is very rare.  You will find great pleasure in it when you arrive at that knowledge point. You will be amazed with what you can accomplish with your Tormek.

That experience is a great thing to share with your students.  Once you have that kind of in depth understanding of something, you can transfer it to other problems. It is worth enduring all the frustrations you are experiencing now.

For a little comic relief, be sure and watch the video about the the actor and comedian who loves to fish on the Tormek website. It's a delightful combination of practical wisdom and life's humor, with some knife sharpening included.

fortune favors the brave,

Ken

checking that the surface of the stone is square to the side of the stone is not a valid test.  The true test is only if the surface of the stone is parallel to the usb AFTER truing.  Nothing references off the side of the stone and there is usually wobble or run out to some degree on all wheels.  This normally doesn't affect grinding so long as after truing the surface is parallel to the usb.

If you recall Kenny reported that AFTER TRUING and placing the usb against the wheel it was running out of parallel.  This means something else is afoot.

Also recall that Stig is personally in touch with him now so its all being managed.  I wouldn't worry about trying to fix it now, I'm sure Kenny will fill us in after he and Stig have completed their diagnostic.

Yup, Rob, you are right.  Kenny is in good hands and will get his issues figured out, and the side of the wheel is probably not the best reference. Good points.  Sure is a curiosity though, and a fun puzzle to speculate about.  Hard not to. :).  Kenny, please let us know what was up when you get it figured out.

Uh, OH!  Off topic link!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HaN8AFQnoA .  Ken, here is how I learned to cut mats.  Super simple, works perfectly every time and you don't even have to think!  One of those cool things that works because it has to.

I have no doubt that Stig and Kenny will solve the problem and post the solution.  I do believe there is more to this series of posts than just a simple case of trouble.  The combination of thoughts on troubleshooting presented here may prove useful to others in similar circumstances. Developing diagnostic and troubleshooting skills is a valuable mental asset for many aspects of life. We can learn by working on related puzzles.

Well done video, Grepper.  If I had seen it during my initial struggles, I probably wouldn't have  worked so hard.  It's off topic, however, I would use spacers and rarely change the distance setting. I also don't have to use pencil marks or glue for double or triple mats.  I have expended a lot of thought and frustration in this quest, and would have gotten proficient with the method shown in the video much more quickly and painlessly.

Ken

I've made contact with the UK distributor as well and sent him a video of me  sharpening a blade in the vertical 'normal' position. 
I'll share this picture with you guys as well.  this is a  shot of the blade against a square

(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b178/f_rev/tormek/planebladesq.jpg) (http://s19.photobucket.com/user/f_rev/media/tormek/planebladesq.jpg.html)

I went back to horizontal and managed to correct the skew quite easily.

Quote from: Rob on August 07, 2014, 10:54:28 AM
If you recall Kenny reported that AFTER TRUING and placing the usb against the wheel it was running out of parallel.  This means something else is afoot.

In my last post I talked about the possibility of the grindstone axis not being parallel to the horizontal bar of the USB.  I now see that I didn't express that thought correctly.  It may be that the two are not parallel, but that they do lie in the same plane.  In Kenny's case if those mounting holes are not in the correct place, it may be that the grindstone axis and the horizontal bar don't lie in the same plane.  They are askew. 

Quote from: Ken S on August 06, 2014, 05:11:13 PM
I looked inside my Tormek with the grinding wheel removed.  The sleeves appear to be held onto the frame with nuts.  The largest metric wrenches own are 19mm, too small for the nuts. 

Do the sleeves fit into precisely sized holes or are the holes oversized to allow for some adjustment?  If Kenny's sleeves are out of alignment, that might be the problem.

Ken

http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=62.0

According to Jeff's post from 2004 (is the 2007 model different?), they have some play to one side. (and 27mm nuts)

At this point, I think the ball is out of our court.  I just hope what is found is posted, rather then leave threads without an answer, like the other one I found with the same/similar? issue from 2004: http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=57.0
This board is only a good resource when the solutions are here, not just problems.

I feel certain that after all this energy, Stig will do the honourable thing and post up the outcome.  It can only help other people and lighten his future load after all.

Good morning, Kenny.  Any progress on "the Scottish front"?

Ken

Hi.  A progress report so far.

I spoke with the UK Distributor last week who asked that I send a video clip of how I use the machine, which I've done.  Perhaps I went a bit overkill with setting up my Canon DSLR on a tripod with an external Sony Mic, but there you go...   ;)


Anyway I'm currently waiting for a tested 'known good' unit to arrive from the UK distributor for me to try, which should arrive sometime next week.


But there's no real progress other than that;  the only way I can get a square blade is still to run back to front with the tool mounted in the SE-76 backwards at the front of the machine.

Running forwards I can sometimes get a curved blade because I'm fighting the inherent tendency to skew.

I'm sure that eventually we will get to the root of the issue.

The annoying thing is, I'm pleased with how quickly I can get a razor sharp edge, even with the state of some of the blades I've been sharpening.  Even a 1" chisel that had a 'bite' out of the edge in the middle.  I could have used that one to steady a nail for hammering, but it was done in around five minutes.

Running backwards I've noticed that there's a lot of fine strands of metal remain attached to bevel that don't come off until I hone the blades, but it doesn't seem to be much of an issue.  It's like a comb, but the metal is very fine and soft.

Truth be told I don't even bother polishing the whole bevel;  I can freehand hone a microbevel straight off the stone without regrading.   I suppose that's one advantage of doing a lot of blades in succession. 

I was very pleased with the sound I got from the Smoothing Plane (No 4) when I passed it over some Maple yesterday;  that gentle "sffffffffffft" that accompanies a nice thin (2 thou) shaving!   (Given the thickness of the blades being half that of the clifton blades I can't ask better than that on maple...)   

Great job, Kenny.  You certainly would get the forum Marathon Man award, if we had one.

I used to polish the entire bevel all the way through the stones when I used oil stones.  The shiny bevels looked very nice, although I wore out three pairs of hands in the process.  Mirror polish on the entire bevel seems better suited for looking at ourselves than adding sharpness, especially for mass sharpening.

The Tormek is certainly sweet with removing nicks!

I don't think your Canon DSLR on tripod was overkill. Many years ago I purchased an offset router base and fence made by Pat Warner.  Pat put a label on the fence.  I photographed it with my 4x5 and sent him an 8x10 print.  The print was sharp enough to easily read Pat's label.  Pat replied that he was quite impressed with the print, but suggested the fence might work better if not put on backward.  oops.. :)

Keep posting.

Ken

Tried a new approach with one of the 2" plane blades today.  I drew a line on the back of the blade with my square and ground off the curved end using a bench grinder, before re-establishing the bevel on the T-7.  Just to try it.  I can't say if it was any faster but it saves a bit of constant checking  with a square.

As I've been working through the pile of blades,  ( currently I still have a pile of roughly 60 blades to go...)  using the machine in my reverse configuration,  it has struck me that a revised version of the SE-76 specifically for this configuration would be a definite improvement. 
My reasoning is from mounting the chisel in towards the far side of the jig - as far as possible from the registration edge,  I realised that in this position the chisel was midway between the mounting holes for fitting to the USB.  To my mind this eliminates, or reduces the likelyhood of inducing a turning moment or cantilever effect on the jig.
Further, as the blade is lower down and almost horizontal, I find it more comfortable, and the third benefit is that I can accurately see where the grinding is taking place and adjust my grinding pressure focus.   If only there was a registration edge on the other side of the jig as well...  (hint hint!)   However using a square to set the blade in the SE-76 every time does reduce the number of skews I am getting -  occasionally the blade does move in the jig.  I think I prefer this configuration, at least at the moment.  I find peering over the machine a bit uncomfortable as well.

I'd be interested to know if anyone else has tried sharpening in this configuration and what their results are, compared to the normal method.

Fascinating idea, Kenny.  Would you mind copy pasting your last post in a new topic?  The "1/4 inch chisel" is already the longest post on the forum.  I think your idea for modifying the SE-76 deserves its own topic.  It would also be easier to find using search.

I will try out your idea next time I sharpen a chisel.  I believe you may be onto something!

Good job.

Ken

Some time ago I tried the same approach as Kenny, but I can't remember why I went that route.

I think one of the issues I experienced, was that the asymmetric span of jig movement caused the tool to come off the side of the wheel, so the tool cannot be used against the reference edge.

Apart from the suggestion of having two reference faces inside the jig, I assume there is some reason why it is currently shaped to the mounting bushes, both front and back faces should be properly machined and orthogonal to the inside reference edges.

If Tormek are interested in feedback and items which could be developed or re-designed - of which I have posted some - then Tormek should start a specific topic for such a purpose. Get some of this Forum users to test any updated jigs etc and get proper user feedback. It costs them nothing, but look at the interest and participation and customer loyalty which would result. On another forum, a supplier has lent one of their new tools to members of that forum. It is being passed round each interested member who signs up, and that member can use it for a few days, and then pass it on. The feedback and comments are very interesting.

When I have a bit of time I will post about thin wide blade issues - there's another story.

I await Kenny's next update.

Quote from: kennyk on August 14, 2014, 12:11:29 PM

I'd be interested to know if anyone else has tried sharpening in this configuration and what their results are, compared to the normal method.

There are two primary differences between grinding with wheel towards you versus away.  Aggressiveness of cut and direction edge will tend to move.  Towards you the wheel pushes the edge into the stone giving a more aggressive cut that's easier to control.  Away from you gives a lighter cut as the wheel is constantly pushing the edge away from the grinding surface.

So general rule of thumb is if you want a delicate/fine grind go with wheel away (also no risk of edge dig-ins).  If you want to remove a lot of steel go with wheel towards.

Well stated, Rob.  In this case, I would settle (temporarily) for a less aggressive cut which works. We still don't know the results of the "autopsy", but at least Kenny is in the land of sharp blades. We will all be curious to learn "the rest of the story".

Ken

Quote from: kennyk on August 14, 2014, 12:11:29 PM
I find peering over the machine a bit uncomfortable as well.

The Tormek works better when placed on a surface that is much lower than the typical bench top.  We normally place kitchen counter tops at a height of 36 inches, for example, but the Tormek does better on a bench that's at a height of only 30 inches. 

Quote from: Ken S on August 15, 2014, 03:45:32 AM
Well stated, Rob.  In this case, I would settle (temporarily) for a less aggressive cut which works. We still don't know the results of the "autopsy", but at least Kenny is in the land of sharp blades. We will all be curious to learn "the rest of the story".

Ken

Agreed.  Until the problem is understood best off remaining in the position that's delivering for Kenny.

Just wanted to add that I'm not finding much performance difference between the two configurations.  If anything the less aggressive cut is more suitable for the blades that I'm working on, purely because my view is that less aggressive = more controllable grind. or perhaps more correctable early on in the grinding process.

Certainly the burr on the horizontal grind is finer, but I can transform a bevel from the 'curve edged, multi beveled mess' to a nice straight single bevel in a couple of minutes for most blades.   

The plane blades I've been working on have a big curve in them, and it is also assymmetrical and slightly s-shaped to the point that I've managed to get a straight enough new bevel that still has one lopsided corner at the back of the bevel.   I could eliminate it but it would involve taking another couple of mm off the entire blade, which obviously is too time consuming.

I've yet to perfect the technique to give me a blade straight enough that I'd be 100% confident to use it in a No 7 Plane  for joining a pair of spruce wedges for a carved-top instrument using a rub joint, but I'm getting closer.  At the moment speed is the essence. 

I'm certainly finding that the SVS-32 has been useful for a number of chisels which are getting a bit stubby for the SE-76.   To my mind it probably should be part of the standard kit.  Actually on that thought, I think the standard kit should also include a complimentary 2" engineer's square and a Sharpie;  They're an essential part of the learning curve and the whole sharpening process in my view.

They'll never make it into the kit. Cost too much.

Quote from: Rob on August 15, 2014, 02:39:48 PM
They'll never make it into the kit. Cost too much.

if they ditched the gimmicky band-aids...  ;)

I agree about the bandaids.

By the way, whatever happened with the tested and known good unit you were supposed to receive, Kenny?  Do we know anything more about the original problem?

Ken

I'm waiting for delivery of a known good machine. I'm hoping it will arrive later this week.
As soon as I have any updates I will pass on the information. 

I'm still suspecting an issue with the placement of one of the sleeves as the most likely culprit, given that I can get a straight bevel in reverse configuration.
Any time I've had a squint bevel with my reverse config in the last 100 blades, when I've re-checked the blade against the '76 with a square, that has caused the skew, even if it's out by a fraction, so it leaves two possibilities:

1. BOTH SE-76 have the same fault with the registration edge being out of square. (which I'm not using as a reference because the jig is upside down)
or
2.  one of the sleeves is not on the same plane as the other, and out of alignment with respect to the wheel shaft.   (and I'm not using the sleeves when the USB is on the front )

I am reminded of a curious factoid about the Martin Guitar Company which is of potential relevance here.  Back in the 70s it was discovered that the jig that the staff were using to measure for the precise location of the guitar bridge had worn to such an extent that the bridge was being put too far forward, causing all the guitars being manufactured to play out of tune.  When the distance was measured, it became clear what had happened.   I'm not saying that this has happened here, but these things can, and do, happen.


Anyway, I'm pleased to report  that I have a small pile of 'spare' plane blades waiting for the known good unit to turn up, and the rest of my sharpening workload is over.  I'm still disappointed that I didn't manage to get them all completed before the start of term, but at least they're all sharp now.  I've had a very positive comment from one of the teaching staff about the 'luxury' of sharp tools.  It's the plane blades that seem to have made the biggest impression.

I can't speak for the accomplished woodworker, but to me the hand plane is a totally different tool when it has a sharp blade.  Growing up my dad always had a few hand planes lying about.  I had seen him use them, but I could never get them to work for me.  Years later I acquired those very same hand planes and saw what bad shape the irons were in.  They had been sharpened over the decades at ever steeper micro bevels, and had never been properly sharpened in their lives.  I soon had them in good shape and was amazed at how easy it was to shave wood with them.

I'm sure yours will serve your students well, and will be a joy to use for both the teacher and the learner.

Kenny and Stig: Updates?

I'm hoping to have received another machine for testing by the end of the week. with any luck I should have some results fairly soon.

Just another quickish update.

I received a second machine towards the end of last week.  Immediately I was able to sharpen a blade square using the SE-76 as directed by the videos, so it would appear that there is something misaligned on my original machine.  I hope to get the original sent back tomorrow for inspection.

Further comments regarding 'square'.  On this new machine it is still possible to introduce a skew by applying pressure to one side, whereas it was impossble to correct a skew by applying pressure on the other machine.
Also I have learned to ensure that the reference edge is always the one in the registration edge of the SE-76 as the sides of a blade are not always 100% parallel!

Additionally, I'm struggling a bit with getting a completely straight edge; I'm still getting a very slight convex curve, which I'm putting down to technique, although I'm not sure how to correct it at the moment. 

Regarding narrow chisels of 1/4" or less, it still seems that the SE-76 is not very successful. I suspect that when it was designed it wasn't designed with these in mind.    My solutions are to use the SVS-32 (particularly for 3mm / 1/8" chisels) or to try to manually fit the chisel in the middle of the jig and check with an engineers' square.   It's that channel down the registration edge that is causing the chisel to twist in the jig, and I firmly believe that this issue needs to be addressed by Tormek in terms of modification, or at the very least recommending the SE-76 not be used for narrow chisels.   It can be done but to be brutally honest I spend twice as long re-grinding the 1/4 chisels to correct the skew from it twisting in the jig the first time as I do sharpening and honing a chisel if I get it bang on the first time.

good to hear you weren't going nuts though eh Kenny?  Ie it never was operator error so I imagine that must make you feel somewhat human again :-)

With the smaller chisels, you really don't need the jig.  I recommend you try flipping the usb mount position to wheel moving away from you. Mount the Torlok toolrest adjusted to the bevel angle you desire and then just push the narrow chisel (upside down of course) up against the wheel freehand.  Start with an aggressive cut and refine as you remove the steel from the bevel.  You'll need to apply firm finger pressure on the back of the blade close to the wheel to prevent it from popping up with the natural upward force of the wheel but its easily do-able.

Also to prevent the onset of madness, strike a square line with a sharpie on the back so you have a visual reference for square as you grind.  No jig necessary, fast setup.  You'll be quickly surprised how easy freehanding is once you mentally release yourself from the idea that if its not jigged its not "proper".  The human eye is also remarkably accurate at eyeballing square and level in general too so learn to trust it.

Quote from: kennyk on September 03, 2014, 02:48:01 PM
I received a second machine towards the end of last week.  Immediately I was able to sharpen a blade square using the SE-76 as directed by the videos, so it would appear that there is something misaligned on my original machine.

That's good news! I think Ken S identified the problem.

Imagine a line of infinite length passing through the axis of the grindstone, and another passing through the horizontal portion of the Universal Support.  My bet is that these two lines are not parallel, and moreover they never intersect. They are skew lines. The origin of this misalignment is the way the Universal Support mounts in the frame of your T-7.

If I'm right, the problem cannot be corrected by truing the grindstone, which is consistent with your experience.

Herman, the alignment problem is only part of the difficulties.  As I see it, the main problem is a lack of service beyond the emails answered by Sweden in twenty four hours.  For the record, I think the twenty four hour response to emails is an excellent and logical first line solution.

If I was going to purchase another Tormek, or was advising someone, I would assume that a new unit would most probably function as designed with no problems.  Beyond that, I would assume that either the twenty four hour hot line or the forum could straighten out the majority of the problems.

However,  I would also have assurances from the dealer that I could return the unit within a reasonable period, such as thirty days, for a full refund, including any shipping charges.  The shipping charges should include both ways.  In my opinion, if I am unable to get the unit to perform as advertised after putting in a reasonable amount of study, practice, and two or three emails to Sweden, the unit is defective.  I don't say this lightly.  The first thing I would work on would be operator error.  Nothing in the advertising states the unit requires extensive training.  If I was not sharpening well within two weeks, I would return the unit.

Assuming I liked the way the unit was supposed to work, I would order another one.

If the dealer would not give a reasonable thirty day return period with full reimbursement with full refund, including shipping both ways, I would find another dealer. I am fortunate to have good local dealers, although I have not had any bad experiences with either of the two online dealers I have also used. 

Incidentally, I would define part of fluency with a Tormek as being able to sharpen a set of four good quality, but not boutique, chisels (generally 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and 1") and a set of three good kitchen knives, typically 8" chef; 6" slicing; and a paring knife.  If one can repeatedly sharpen those items, I would say machine and operator are functioning normally.

Ken

Just a further update.   My original machine has gone back to the UK distributor, and I'm told will be making its way back to Tormek HQ fairly soon.

Ultimately I'm hoping to find out the answer to if the machine does indeed have an alignment issue.

Meanwhile, the replacement machine is performing a lot better.    I spoke at length today with Stig and Martin (at UK Distributor Brimarc) in a conference call to discuss some of my concerns with the system as a result of the issues that I've had - in particular we discussed the play on the TT-50, and Stig wil be following up with that to set my mind at rest.   

I still have the odd problem with narrow chisels, which I think are a combination of a severe trapezeoid shape and the registration edge channel of the SE-76 as I'm finding that these narrow chisels do have a tendency to twist in the SE-76,  The upshot, as far as I'm concerned is that I find it easier to use the SVS-32 for narrow chisels and work at the front of the machine, although I'm still finding the trick of keeping the top of the bevel level on the USB a little difficult to master.     I'm sending one of our 1/4" chisels to Brimarc for them to have a play with as well, as we're all keen to come up with the answers. 

Personally I'm preferring working on the front of the machine, grinding horizontally but it does bring its own setbacks in that it requires manual setting of the chisel in the SE-76, but that's possibly down to having spent so much time using it in that mode.

Anyway, we're moving forward with things and  I'm a lot happier with the replacement machine performance.  I expect that the areas of doubt I still have are partly down to the idiosyncracies of the way that the Tormek system operates versus my previous methods of sharpening (Japanese Waterstones and 'Scary Sharp' with 3M lapping film)

Good to hear progress is being made and you're being supported Kenny.  We appreciate your reports too, nice to be informed :-)

My last post was not beneficial.  I have edited it. Some things just require time to fully resolve.

Ken

Is there any response from Tormek after examination of the returned machine (posted 12 September)?

Considering this was probably the longest running topic with plenty of input from a lot of forum members, it should not quietly disappear into oblivion.

I would like to know if the problem was misalignment of the Universal Support mounts.

I would like to know if this is in any way related to the new T-4 design improvement in the way the Universal support mounts to the housing.

I've been told that Tormek have examined my original machine and can apparently find no fault with it.

Yet as soon as I moved from that machine to a new machine, I was able to sharpen blades squarely.

I'm now in the position where I've no idea what was going on.  I simply won't accept any attempt to shift the blame to the blades, as they included in the blades that were skewed, a blade from a Clifton No 7 Jointer Plane, the cost of which is more than the cost of a T4.

I appreciate all the hard work by Stig and the UK distributor on this but the fact remains that no-one can explain why I had problems with the original machine.  Further, I was never completely satisfied with the straightness of the edge of any blade I sharpened with either T7 unit.  I could never find a way to prevent a curve.

It is with sadness therefore that I have to grudgingly admit defeat with the Tormek system and reluctlantly accept that it simply does not work for me, at least not to the tolerances I'm looking for.

I'm disappointed because the blades were sharp. but not square or straight.   
Having moved to a school without the Tormek I've had to revert to Oil or Diamond stones. Regrinding on the viceroy Sharpedge and then honing on the oilstone.   It takes a bit longer and the blades whilst still cutting hair, aren't quite as sharp, so I've no access to the Tormek system any more.  I may have been able to perfect the method, but to be perfectly honest, I did over 200 blades on it and that ought to have been enough.  If it's really that difficult then Torkmek need to look again at their training/teaching methods.  I've done nearly as many blades (around 160) by hand in less time than I spent troubleshooting the problems I had with the original T7 unit.

I understand that this won't be well received, and also may appear churlish in light of all the effort from Tormek, but I've reached the end of the road.   I'd hoped eventually to purchase a Tormek for my own workshop, but after the difficulties I've had, my options are now to stick with Scary Sharp or Japanese waterstones.  I miss the ease and speed of the T7 but it's not much good if it's not straight.  :(

Thanks for chiming back in and letting us know Kenny. :)

Kenny, i'm sorry things didn't work out for you and the Tormek. You certainly put in a good effort.  Best wishes at your new school.  Maybe sometime in the future you may miss those very sharp edges and give things another try.

regards,

Ken

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum. After about 12 years I unpacked my Tormek and decided to sharpen some tools and knives. I can't remember if I had this problem before as it's been so long since I last used it.

When trying to sharpen a chisel I find it doesn't sharpen with a straight edge. It sharpens very well but at an angle. Am I doing something wrong?

Many thanks,
Serge

Use the truing tool to true up the grindstone. Yours will be the older version.

This is the only video I could find illustrating use of the older version. You likely don't have the advancing mechanism shown in the video, but it illustrates the idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x_VWruZVHA

I have two words for you, Robert Sorby.
I understand that this won't be well received, and also may appear churlish in light of all the effort from Tormek, but I've reached the end of the road.   I'd hoped eventually to purchase a Tormek for my own workshop, but after the difficulties I've had, my options are now to stick with Scary Sharp or Japanese waterstones.  I miss the ease and speed of the T7 but it's not much good if it's not straight.  :(
[/quote]

Jeff, I don't think your last post was appropriate for this forum. As Herman so accurately stated, we are guests on this forum. Tormek AB foots the bill. We pay no subscription and must endure no inane advertisments. We would not be dinner guests and complain about the meal.

Sergio, nothing personal, however, I think the problem may be operator inexperience or error. If most of the forum can grind a square edge, I would think more thorough preparation and practice would be in order. Have you recently reread the handbook?

Regarding Robert Sorby, I recently attended one of their turning seminars. It was most informative. Sorby makes a diverse and innovative line of turning tools. Sorby also makes a well designed sharpening system, the Pro Edge. If I was younger and had a much more active shop, I would have one sitting next to my Tormek. I see them as complementary, and neither as a full substitute for the other.l

Those of you who have read my previous posts know that I have complaoned about the lack of good training material from Tormek. I still feel that way. However, I don't believe we can denegrate a well made and versatile sharpening system itself because of the lack of good training material.

Ken

Sergio,
I apologize if I came down hard on you. I did not mean to. We have had numerous posts over the years complaining of unsquare edges. I had hoped to lessen these problems by posting the first post in this section about sharpening a three quarter inch chisel. My original intention was to keep the post short enough to be readily absorbable. It grew and was unfortunately was never edited. I don't care about receiving any credit for it; I just want to help fellow forum members get up to speed more easily.

I think a medium width chisel is probably the easiest tool to start with to learn the feel and operation of a Tormek. I have not found the Tormek to be an automatic machine. It is capable of a wide variety of work in skilled hands. The problem is a lack of training to make the hands skilled. The handbook is well written. Each time I reread my copy I learn more. However, the handbook only goes so far.

In spite of my frustrations with the lack of good training material, I have come to believe that if Jeff Farris can sharpen a chisel well and square, the machine is capable of such work. The problem must lie with operator inexperience. The "operator" category certainly includes me. I am not a natural with tools. Whatever small level skill I have acquired has not come easily.

We have seen too many postings of the same problems on this forum. That is certainly not a criticism of the posters. Please continue posting. My criticism is with the level of readily available training and guidance. I don't care how the level of Tormek training compares with other tool companies. Better or worse, it still is not adequate as seen by the number of problems posted.

This seems most unfortunate to me. The drill bit jig comes to mind. With proper knowledge of drill bits and good skill with the jig, the Tormek is capable of sharpening drill bits with great sophistication and specialization. This level of proficiency is far beyond the needs of the average home workshop.  However, for someone who needs specialty drill bits, the Tormek is a very versatile tool.

In general, I believe that, within its scope, the Tormek is capable of much more than the average user is presently capable of achieving without more experience or training. In our age of youtube training and Internet sources, it seems unfortunate to me that we are so hampered.

Hang in there, Sergio. With perseverance square edges and skill will follow. Keep posting.

Ken

I still have difficulty getting a square edge on my chisels and plane irons. I suppose with a greater effort I could do better, but why? They don't need to be perfectly square to work perfectly well.

You can get them as square as you like, but the grindstone must be true.

Serge,
Just in case you haven't already read it on the forum: A small square and a black marker are very useful. Grind only a little and check with the square to make sure you are square. One of the most useful tips in staying square is not to get too far out of square.

You can make small adjustments with finger pressure while grinding. Lean ore heavily on the side which is long. That will help to stay square.

Herman is quite correct. Beyond a certain point, we try to be square to satisfy our vanity rather than for any functional woodworking purpose. After all, chisels were sharpened by hand for centuries.

Ken

I believe the trick is having the eye to recognize when the chisel is being ground out of square and apply pressure to the long side. People like Jeff Farris have this technique mastered.

I emphasize, though, that without a true grindstone no technique will get you a square end.