I believe the TTS-100 Turning Tool Setter and the SVD-186 make sharpening and maintaining turning jouges the most advanced function of the Tormek. The combination offers both great versatility and efficient repeatability. For some reason, Tormek has not chosen to expand this very effective method to sharpening other tools, such as knives and chisels.
The WM-200 AngleMaster is a well designed tool. I would not be without one. It is, however, a tool I hope to use as little as possible. I should explain.
The bevel angle of grinding is determined by the angles of a right triangle. By definition, the angle from the grinding wheel to the universal support is ninety degrees, a right angle. The angles determined by the distance between the grinding wheel to the universal support and the projection distance of the edge of the tool from the universal support are the other two angles. By definition, the sum of these two angles must equal ninety degrees. With the Turning Tool setter, the distance between the grinding wheel and the universal support is determined by inserting the TTS-100 into the universal support. The two holes, A and B automatically set thirty and forty five degree angles. Inserting the gouge into one of the three distance slots automatically sets the projection distance. The TTS-100 even adjusts automatically for wear of the grinding wheel. The system is simple, every effective and offers repeatable accuracy with no other measuring.
By comparison, the usual methods of setting bevel angles with other tools, including the AngleMaster and using a black marker, seem primitive and slow.
I designed the kenjig (formerly known as the KS-150) to avoid the necessity of redundant measuring. Setting the kenjig on the adjustable stop of any of the Tormek knife jigs and adjusting the length of the jig with the knife attached to the pencil line (139mm) provided a consistent projection distance. Placing the universal support in the notch of the jig and adjusting the distance to the point where the jig touched the grinding wheel provided a consistent distance between the universal support and the grinding wheel. No precise measuring was required.
The jig length and position of the notch were determined using Dutchman's trig tables posted on this forum. They work very well. I also believe that using the tables may be intimidating to those of us whose math skills are rusty and or limited.
I designed the angle setting tool as a stand in for a knife blade. (Thanks, Steve, for suggesting the term "stand in".) This tool is very simple and easily home made. I used a piece of "welding steel" found at the same display in the hardware store as the aluminum bar stock for those of you have made one of Herman's HK-50 jigs. This particular piece was a length from a three foot length of 1" x 1/8" (25mm x 3 mm) steel. I chose steel because aluminum can be "gummy" when ground. Aluminum or hardboard would also work, and the dimensions are not critical.
An acute bevel is ground on one edge. The tool resembles a small simple plane blade, although the bevel is left unsharp. The bevel should be less than the most acute bevel you plan to use. (Generally anything less than fifteen degrees.)
The tool is placed in any of the Tormek knife jigs and the jig adjusted to the 139mm line of the kenjig. The knife jig is set on the universal support, just as in sharpening a knife. The AngleMaster can be used to set the distance between the universal support and the grinding wheel to the desired bevel angle. The "stand in" tool provides a long, wide flat plane, like the back of a chisel, to facilitate easy and accurate use of the AngleMaster.
At this point, as long as the knife is set in the jig to the distance of the pencil line (139mm), the set up is ready to go. A much more efficient alternative is available. With the distance (universal support to grinding wheel) set, use a combination square set from the distance above the universal support to flat on the grinding wheel. Mark this distance on a new kenjig. Cut the notch to this length. Make sure the 139mm (or whatever length you desire) is marked on one face of the kenjig.
With the kenjig, setting the knife in jig length to the line and the universal support to grinding wheel distance to the notch will produce accurate and repeatable grinding with no further measuring required. Be sure to label the kenjig with the angle. Kenjigs may be produced for whatever bevel angle is desired. This tool can be used for more tools than knives.
I encountered one minor problem with the steel. I used the end of the piece. The length had been cut in the factory with a large punch, which rounded off the edge. This rounded edge, like the rounded edge of a carelessly back sharpened chisel, should be ground off.
I welcome comments and suggestions. See the included photos.
(http://i.imgur.com/lEKSIrP.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/LV1eX28.jpg)
Ken
Many thanks, Jimmy.
Need help with the pictures ? :D
Thanks, Jimmy!!!!
Please check your email. I just sent the photos to you.
Ken
Thank you for your new interesting post, Ken. :)
I will need some more time to digest your new approach, to see its strong side and efficiency/accuracy.
In the second picture, the Angle master is set to some 18o, I am wondering why? In my understanding the standard Kenjig uses the following parameters: 139 mm for jig and knife length, 80 mm for stone-support distance and 30 o(2 * 15o) for edge angle. Assuming a new grindstone.
Jan
Excellent observation, Jan. Yes, the angle master is set for eighteen degrees. The kenjig was designed for one angle. With the new tool, any angle within a reasonable range is usable. Eighteen degrees is the standard first bevel Steve uses. I must have been asleep when I made the photos.......
Ken
Thank you, Ken, for your prompt explanation. :)
So, if I understand you correctly, your new approach preserves the length of 139 mm for knife jig with knife, while the stone-support distance is set using the angle master for the desired angle. Your new tool provides enough place for the angle setter, ensuring very good angle setting precision. The stone-support distance is then graphically transferred to a new kenjig.
In the case of the original kenjig, designed for 30o edge angle, you experimentally estimated the length 139 mm and determined the corresponding 80 mm stone-support distance from the Dutchman's tables.
So I understand it, I hope rightly so.
Jan
Danm i'm trying here. but i fail to get the hole point of this thread.. can someone erhh explaine it to me (as a 6 year old).. Thanks in advance.
Jan,
There is nothing sacred about the 139mm projection length. I measured my paring, slicing and chef's knives in the Tormek knife jigs and noted the range of each knife from the minimum to the maximum lengths of the preferred knife jigs. I noted the range and picked 139mm, which gave me some "wiggle room" ("tolerance" or "adjustment room" would be better non English centric terms). i used the Tormek small knife tool for the paring knife to keep the range more consistent, although it could be done with the standard knife jig.
My original suggested measurements just happen to work for me. I would suggest others make their own measurements. It is a good part of the learning process.
Jimmy,
Think of a right triangle with the distance from the universal support to the grinding wheel being one leg. Imagine the point where the first side intersects the grinding wheel and the point where the knife edge intersects the grinding wheel as forming the second leg of a right triangle. The point where the knife jig intersects the universal support and where the knife edge intersects the grinding wheel form the hypotenuse of the triangle. As long as the angles of this triangle remain constant, the bevel angle will remain constant.
The kenjig allows us to return to a consistent edge projection and distance between the universal support and the grinding wheel. The original kenjig was designed to use Dutchman's trig tables to determine these dimensions.
The new metal angle setting tool works as a stand in for the knife blade, and provides a large flat measuring surface. This allows the AngleMaster to work more effectively. My plan is to use the tool with the AngleMaster only once, to set up the wooden kenjig. If a different bevel angle is desired, the setup can be used to set up another wooden kenjig
This is much more easily demonstrated with a video than in print. However, as you well know, my digital sharing skills are limited. My digital camera is capable of making good videos; I am not so capable (yet). I have many new digital skills to learn before attempting video. I am working on it! I recently switched to a Macbook Pro for my photo work with Adobe Lightroom CC. That's a lot for an old film guy to learn.
Don't hesitate to keep asking questions. That's how we all learn.
Ken
Thanks Ken for taking the time to explain.
If you ever need help with the video part, of computer (altho i'm not a mac man) i might be able to help you out .
Thanks, Jimmy. I think this will work for me, although I still have to modify the size. This image is approximately 25mm of my chef's knife edge.
I found the crop/resize button and resized this down to 400 x 267, a much more usable size. I will delete the larger image in a few days. Perhaps the old dog can learn new tricks after all.
Ken
(http://i.imgur.com/OKIoe5c.jpg?1)
(http://i.imgur.com/OKIoe5c.jpg)
I almost started a new topic, "moderating the moderator". In my last post, I inadvertently posted an oversized photo. My intention was to leave it up for only a few days to show how easily oversized photos can be added.
Within a few minutes, the photo was resized. Either the "Overmoderator" in Sweden was at his post, or, more likely, the program automatically made the change. Either way, it was a good call.
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on October 22, 2015, 02:15:32 AM
Jan,
There is nothing sacred about the 139mm projection length. I measured my paring, slicing and chef's knives in the Tormek knife jigs and noted the range of each knife from the minimum to the maximum lengths of the preferred knife jigs. I noted the range and picked 139mm, which gave me some "wiggle room" ("tolerance" or "adjustment room" would be better non English centric terms). i used the Tormek small knife tool for the paring knife to keep the range more consistent, although it could be done with the standard knife jig.
My original suggested measurements just happen to work for me. I would suggest others make their own measurements. It is a good part of the learning process.
Thank you Ken, for pointing out how you determined the length of 139 mm. I remember that it was the result of a series of tests.
I want to assure you, that I do not have any problem with your length 139 mm. Conversely, you might remember that I adopted this length for my Knife Tip Setting Template.
(http://img23.rajce.idnes.cz/d2303/11/11662/11662961_154b127859a75fd0e4c34b43d800ec69/images/Template_1B.jpg?ver=0)
for details see http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=2562.30
So, I am glad that your new approach preserves the projection length of 139 mm! This protects my investment in designing the template.
Your new tool is a clever approach that is available to all, even those who do not have the Dutchman's tables by hand. Thanks for sharing it with us. :)
Jan
Jan,
You can easily find Dutchman's tables on the forum. Do a member search under"D" (just the search function doesn't bring him up. He only posted a few times. His post at the bottom of the page includes the link to his booklet and tables.
Ken
http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=1849.msg9521#msg9521
Ken asked me to modify my knife jig positioning drawing into a form which can farther clarify his concept of a new angle setting tool. So my sketch is here. :)
(http://img23.rajce.idnes.cz/d2303/11/11662/11662961_154b127859a75fd0e4c34b43d800ec69/images/KEN_angle_setting_tool_700.jpg?ver=0)
Jan
P.S.:The wheel-support distance can also be calculated with an Excel spreadsheet which is available for download at the following address:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ypbtaxgycgoyls0/KENJIG_wheel_support_distance_1.xlsb?dl=1 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ypbtaxgycgoyls0/KENJIG_wheel_support_distance_1.xlsb?dl=1)
Many thanks, Jan.
Your drawing is exactly what I need to clarify the setting tool. Your drawing works better than my photograph. Nice job on the excel file, too. We are getting there! By the way, the concept of using the triangle of grinding wheel, projection length and distance between the universal support an grinding wheel was never meant to be limited to knives. I actually started using it with chisels, and it will work with many tools.
Elden,
First-rate researching!
Ken
Ken, you are welcome! :)
You are correct, the geometrical concept is universal, not limited to knives. Nevertheless your kenjig concept is assuming Tormek universal support and knife jig.
At this occasion I would like to refer to the topic "Long Knife Jig asymmetry problem", http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=2577.0 . Wootz has described here, the bevel width asymmetry observed when sharpening thick knifes.
Despite the fact that in your case the jig asymmetry will not manifest itself fully, I would recommend you to use thin metal piece for your new angle setting tool. The optimal thickness of your blade is the one that has the edge in the longitudinal axis of the knife jig. In my drawing you can see that the edge is above the jig axis.
I am wondering if steel scraper would be appropriate for your tool.
Jan
Interesting observation, Jan.
I have a very small scraper that I will try in the knife jig. Also, an old gift card or credit card cut to size might work well. I noticed the thicker steel edge being off axis in your drawing. Your drawing is very informative. I don't know if being off axis presents a practical problem or not. My gut feeling is that it is not a problem.
I agree that the kenjig assumes using the Tormek universal support. However, it does not assume use of the knife jig. In fact, I orininally wanted to incorporate the concept of the Tormek TTS-100 setting tool for turning tools to work with bench chisels. The TTS-100 combines the traditional spacer block and projection stop block with a very clever two points contact with the grinding wheel concept. This concept automatically compensates for changing wheel diameter. It also allows using either the T7 or T4 with no adjustment.
My grandchilren are awake. I will finish this later.
Ken
Grandchildren are in school.
I originally tried using the TTS-100 with bench chisels. I like the fixed universal support ro grinding wheel and the auto diameter compensation. The rhree projection slots are all roo long. I placed a blank piece of white label tape in the shortest slot. I made marks where 20, 25' and 30 degree bevels are. Doing this once means all future chisels can be "autoset".
The present very simple design of the kenjig compromises the diameter compensation for construction simplicity. I want the average user to be able to make one with just a combination square and a handsaw.
My ideal kenjig(s) for knives would be a pair made of plastic. They would have the two contact wheels like the TTS-100. Each would have one hole, one jig calibrated and labelled fifteen degrees, the other for twenty degrees. The side opposite the contact wheels would be flat and far enough to allow for a 139 mm mark.
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on November 10, 2015, 12:40:14 PM
I agree that the kenjig assumes using the Tormek universal support. However, it does not assume use of the knife jig.
Ken, the assumption concerning the universal support is hidden in Dutchman formula. The figure "6" is the radius of universal support in mm. Similarly, in my formula for the corrected wheel-support distance S' there is another figure "6", which is the radius of the shaft of the knife jig, again in mm. Both assumptions are clear from my drawing.
However, if you set the bevel angle using the AngleMaster, you do not make any assumptions.
Quote from: Ken S on November 10, 2015, 12:40:14 PMI noticed the thicker steel edge being off axis in your drawing. Your drawing is very informative. I don't know if being off axis presents a practical problem or not. My gut feeling is that it is not a problem.
Your feeling is correct! :) The knife jig asymmetry problem occurs fully after flipping the knife jig. My comment was rather educative, to show that using thin blade is completely OK, while thick blade may cause some problems.
According to my preliminary estimate, the knife jig asymmetry can cause almost 1
o difference in bevel angles for 4 mm (1/6") thick knife blade.
Jan
Jan,
I believe we are operating on two different levels. You seem to be approaching the horse like an accomplished gymnist executing a precise routine. I find this commendable, and fully encourage you!
While I appreciate the solid math background, I am humbly operating on the level of one who wants to mount and dismount from the horse without falling.
My original motivation in designing the kenjig was to provide a simple, repeatable alternative to setting up the Tormek knife jigs with a minimum of tedious measuring. The jig can be used very precisely, however, it was designed to facilitate an operation which has historically been performed freehand.
Do keep up the good work, Jan. We need both levels!
Ken
Ken, it is always useful when two people are dealing with the same thing, although they have different approaches. :)
Quote from: Ken S on November 10, 2015, 03:00:59 PM
My ideal kenjig(s) for knives would be a pair made of plastic. They would have the two contact wheels like the TTS-100. Each would have one hole, one jig calibrated and labelled fifteen degrees, the other for twenty degrees. The side opposite the contact wheels would be flat and far enough to allow for a 139 mm mark.
Ken
Your consideration of the ideal kenjig for knives, in principle similar to TTS-100, inspired me to think about how this seemingly simple tool setter works. It took me two days thinking. Hopefully, I guess how it works.
In the drawing below, you can see standard TTS-100 with additional hole for ideal kenjig for knives. The additional hole is designed for 15 degrees bevel angle and 139 mm projection length.
This TTS-100-kenjig should automatically compensate for changing wheel diameter! :)
Ken, if you find it interesting, please test it on T7 and T4 and let me know. I have prepared it as a desktop exercise, without building a prototype. ;)
Jan
Jan,
It's too bad we cannot bill Tormek consultant's fees for our thought hours; we would be more prosperous!
Your drawing is an excellent starting point; your thought time was well spent. To adapt the TTS-100 for knife work, we can eliminate the three slots (P=75mm, etc.); the three handle slots (30 degrees, etc) and the original A and B holes.
With your drawing orientation, I would place the right side against the adjustable stop as the starting reference surface for the 139mm measurement with the knife jigs. I would suggest expanding the top (of the drawing) to bottom size to incorporate the new hole and on the top to allow a little more length for the 139mm line.
Part of the beauty of this design is that it combines simplicity with accuracy and versatility. The tool can be made from a paper pattern. It could be made from one piece of cardboard or plastic. The only labelled designation necessary would be "fifteen degrees". (I would suggest having a second drawing and tool for "twenty degrees.) By using the technology of the TTS-100, the tool automatically compensates for grinding wheel wear, and also functions with full accuracy for either the T7 or T4.
The automatic compensation and utility with either T7 and T4 make this design a substantial improvement over the original kenjig for this application.
I wish to keep this tool as simple as possible. However, I would also like a third drawing with a line along the axis from the center of the hole to the contact point with the grinding wheel. I realize this would be more complicated than just a straight line. It might have to be an arc. This line would have millimeter calibration marks with every five or ten marks (short cross lines) made more bold. Each centimeter line might also be labelled. Calibration need only be within reasonable limits of the universal support distance.
The purpose of this third drawing would be to allow the user to accurately make up individualized tools for other applications. This would allow users to make jigs for specialized purposes, such as bench chisels, mortising chisels, plane blades, etc. The original template when transferred would have a sharp hole to locate the new universal support setting hole.
This project definitely benefits from having more than one mind!
Thanks, Jan.
Ken
Jan,
May I modify my last drawing request?
1) I would like to incorporate a metric scale in the middle, perhaps three to five centimeters. This would allow me to check the printouts with my metric rule and insure they are printed to the proper scale.
2) One drawing with cross hairs for both fifteen and twenty degree bevel circle locations is fine. I plan to print out your drawing, cut it out and use it as a template for 3mm or 6mm thick baltic birch plywood. I can use the cross hairs to accurately locate the holes with a sharp pointed divider leg.
3) Could you please include the location of the hole for eighteen degrees? Steve Bottorff uses eighteen degrees for the primary knife been he uses with the Tormek. Being able to set that quickly would be useful.
4) After further thought, please leave in the two original holes of the TTS-100. I am thinking beyond knives for this. I have found the existing holes useful for bench chisels and plane irons. My thinking would be to use the jig in reverse for them: set the distance between the universal support and grinding wheel first using the existing holes. Set the projection length of the tool to conform to these, and mark the back side of the jig with this distance. This individual setting would be instead of the "139mm" mark.
An example of this might be, using the nearer hole (designated A on the TTS-100) with a mortise chisel, then determine the correct tool projection length using either a black marker or the angle master. Scribe this distance on the jig. Label the jim "Mortise chisel, thirty five degrees". (This is just an example.) This baltic birch jig would be custom made for mortise chisels and reserved for their use. I do not want to limit this jig to knives.
I do appreciate your help with this, Jan.
Ken
Ken, your interest really pleases me. :)
Now I need a little rest, the thinking made me tired, plus I am still reconsidering some methodological aspects. I cannot rule out a minor corrections.
I have assumed that you have the TTS-100, and that the additional hole you can easy realize by screwing two small plastic plates, through the A and B holes, to the sides of the original tool setter. For this purpose, the dimensions given in my sketch are fully sufficient.
To your questions:
Ad1) In the posted drawing they are three protrusion lengths (75, 65, 55 mm), which you can use (75, 65, 55 mm) for scaling.
Ad2) I am afraid that you will not be able to build the tool from plywood with sufficient accuracy. In doing a dozen of sketches I saw that an accuracy of 0.5 mm is not sufficient. I intend to purchase the TTS-100.
I will add the hole for 20 degree later, when I am quite sure that the prototype for 15 degrees works fine.
Ad3) We will see the positions of the additional holes for 18 and 20 degrees, they can overlap.
Ad4) Thinking beyond knives is nice, but my additional holes assume the knife jig!
Jan
Jan, for after your rest:
I have been working with your drawing. No need for the metric scale. I do have a TTS-100. It was one of the first accessories I purchased, and I really like it. I placed my printout of your drawing on a flat surface and matched the existing A and B holes of the TTS-100 with your drawing. The scale was close, but not exact. By trial and error I reprinted your drawing with the page setting set for 103%. It was an exact match. (I'm sure the error factor was in my printer.)
You are correct; the three projection slot lengths show the same 103% correction is necessary. i can easily pencil in the extra size needed to accommodate the fifteen and twenty degree holes. I have a piece of 6mm baltic birch plywood large enough for two tools. I prefer not to have the holes overlap, so the first tool I make will be for fifteen degrees. That happens to match my existing kenjig.
I agree with you that plywood, even baltic birch, is not the ideal material for an accurate tool. The ideal tool would be a slightly modified Tormek made TTS-100 (Are you reading this, Sweden?) As the tool would be used for Knife Setting rather than Turning Tool Setting, I would suggest a Tormek product name of KS-100.
The Tormek TTS-100 is a very superior product. In my opinion, it is the most accurate and versatile Tormek layout tool by a wide margin.The two contact wheels are metal. There are two wheels on each side of the tool, much like the four wheels on a car. The wheels spin when contacting the grinding wheel when the grinding wheel is moved by hand. The tool is improved (in my opinion) by drawing lines from the center of the wheel to one point along the circumference. This resembles a bicycle wheel with one visible spoke and makes it very easy to see when the wheel first makes contact.
The two wheel axles snap in place. the tool is nicely made with a raised circle in the plastic for good wheel clearance (nice touch, Tormek). As I recall, I first saw these spoke lines in the Tormek Friends Glenn Lucas video. Good tip, Glenn.
With the projection slots facing up, the back side of the tool has a registration shoulder surface to hold the tool in place against the edge of a work bench. This is a good design feature for turning tools. As a more advanced prototype, I would acquire at least one more TTS-100. i would grind or sand off the back projection shoulder to glue on a piece of flat 3mm plastic. By using Jan's template and accurately laying out the new fifteen degree hole and both of the existing holes, aligning the two existing holes with the TTS-100 will assure accurate alignment for the new hole.
With the plastic plate accurate in place and secure, I would draw the 139mm line opposite the flat edge (the former edge with the three projection slots).
My first choice would be to eventually purchase a Tormek made version of this, should Sweden decide to make one.
Ken
ps (later)
If, instead of the humble resources of my home workshop, I had the power of the Tormek engineering department, I might be tempted to make my jig a realistic copy of the TTS-100 with the single hole modified to resemble the angle adjustment of the WM-200. That way, one accessory would cover both fifteen and twenty degrees, with intermediate settings included. Like both the TTS-100 and thr WM-200, the KS-100 would be equally at home with both the T7 and the T4. The TTS-100 presently sells for $27.00 US. As most of the design is already completed, the KS-100 should sell for around the same price.
Ken, I'm glad you have the TTS-100, and you are ready to build a physical prototype. :)
TTS-100 is for testing of our prototype, with additional knife holes, the best solution. TTS is not easy to make in a home workshop with limited, humble resources.
TTS-100 simply bewitched me, I could not stop thinking about it until I understood how it works. :)
For your testing you can download a high resolution image of my TTS-100-kenjig drawing from the following address: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm61j0qss6lmpes/TTS100_3.jpg?dl=1 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm61j0qss6lmpes/TTS100_3.jpg?dl=1)
Please keep in mind, we are testing prototype and I cannot rule out some minor hole position correction for improving the function. It should work for wheel diameters from 250 mm to 160 mm!
Jan
Jan, you make a good point about the importance of physical prototypes. I once spent a lot of time designing a new jig to make duplicate threading patterns on a Unimat lathe. The extensive pencil designing work in my graph paper notebook evaporated when I finally started to make a physical prototype. (The motor occupied the same physical space!)
The present simple wooden kenjig is actually the product of several more primitive prototypes. The present jenjis is joining the ranks of prior prototypes. That's progress. Let's stay tuned and see where this progress leads. Other forum members: your ideas are most welcome.Join in the fun!
Ken
Ken, during your Hartville programme, I have improved my drawing SW portfolio, so I could drop my hand sketching. :)
In the drawing below you can see, in red, the length L and height H which we need to position the additional hole in the TTS-100.
High resolution drawing at actual size, which can serve as a drilling template, can be downloaded from the following address:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw32tgvsaacd2k2/TTS100_7_skut_vel.pdf?dl=1
Jan
P.S.: Hats off, Tormek, the concept of TTS-100 is uniquely simple and effective.
Jan,
Driving to the Hartville job, I had an idea. Using the two point contact of the TTS-100, if we draw a circle of say 250mm diameter, like a new Tormek wheel; and place the cut out circle touching the two points. Using the center point of that now attached circle as the starting point with a compass and the center point of one of the existing holes ("A" and "B") as the pencil point for the compass. If we draw an arc, will that arc be equidistant from the center point of the grinding wheel circle? (sorry for the very complicated sentence)
If that arc yields a constant distance from the center point, can we do the same thing with your angle points? If those arcs are equidistant from the center, we should be able to locate the 12mm (slightly larger for clearance) holes anywhere along the arc. That way we can avoid the overlapping holes or enlarging the existing jig.
Measuring from the outside lip of the side of the jig with the three projections slots (55, 65, 75mm), the length to the far side, by the one contact wheel is just over 139mm. If all this works, all we would need to do to have a very workable (but somewhat crude) prototype is scribe a line at 139mm , locate and drill the angle holes we wish. Label the holes, and the jig is done.
This simple jig would not only work with turning tools (as originally designed), it would also work for kitchen knives. I also have mine set up for bench chisels and plane blades.
In my opinion, using a single jig for all of this would be confusing for many users. I would prefer a separate jig for kitchen knives, bench chisels and plane blades (essentially for kitchen knives and straight edge tools). Modification on a "homemade" level could easily be done in a home workshop in an hour (working slowly). On a more professional level, Tormek would already have most of the engineering completed in the original TTS-100 design. Retooling for the knife/ straight edge bevels jig should be inexpensive.
I wish I had a better math background. I am grateful that you do, Jan, and do appreciate your good work!
Ken
Sorry Ken, I didn't get your point. :( Nevertheless the positions of the additional holes with respect to the metal contact discs and the existing holes A and B are fixed. No admissible geometrical transformation can change it without changing the bevel angle or TTS ability to compensate for changing wheel diameter.
The only allowed operation is to rotate with the whole tool setter around the wheel axis. This property enables us to select the universal support positioned either horizontally or vertically.
(http://img8.rajce.idnes.cz/d0803/12/12121/12121060_5e249ca78c74a6b5d45884e299c5c95d/images/Knife_jig_4_700new_1.jpg?ver=0)
The drawing shows the knife jig on horizontally positioned universal support for grinding/honing away from the edge.
Jan
Jan,
Your last post will require some time for my limited mind to absorb. However, that time will have been well spent. This process may require both ebb and flow time, however, I am confident the end result will more than justify the time invested and contribute to the general Tormek technique.
Keep up the good work.
Ken
Ken, feel free to take your time. :)
Given that we already winterized our gardens, maybe I will also go on from my desktop exercise to making a physical prototype of the modified tool setter. I am also curious if the design is OK. German proverb says: "The devil is in the details".
Jan
Jan,
Physical prototypes are always a good idea. I speak from having spent a long time with graph paper designing a product which a simple prototype would have demonstrated would not work. >:(
Ken
Ken, I have a small Christmas present for you. :)
I build a prototype of the modified tool setter for your knife jig. It is designed for 15 degrees bevel angle and your 139 mm projection length.
The major advantage is, that the setter is not dependent on grinding stone/honing wheel diameter.
Jan
P.S.: The plastic plate is made of 8 mm thick polyethylene. To increase the setter stability on the universal support, it may be good, to put this plastic plate from each side of the TTS-100. In this case, thinner plastic plate could be used.
Drilling template, can be downloaded from the following address:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw32tgvsaacd2k2/TTS100_7_skut_vel.pdf?dl=1
That looks great, Jan!
Out of curiosity, approximately how many revolutions of the universal support bar adjustment nut would need to be made to increase the bevel to 20° using this setting tool? I know another one could be made to the 20° bevel setting. However, I would think turning the adjustment nut a predetermined number of turns from the 15° setting would be a workable solution as well.
Excellent work, Jan!
Interesting comment, too, Elden.
I hope to post a related topic in a day or two. Busy family schedule today.
Ken
Thank you Elden and Ken. :)
Elden, at this moment I cannot answer your very interesting question, because I drilled only the additional hole for US at 15 degrees. The two smaller holes are only pilot holes for 10 and 20 degrees bevel angles. I did not drill them to the full size (12 mm), because they overlap with the hole for 15 degrees.
Jan
P.S.: Elden, based on my drawings, you have to move the universal support bar by some 7 mm, which corresponds to almost 5 revolutions of the universal support bar adjustment nut. This is valid for 250 mm stone.
Hello all,
Merry Christmas and Happy new year to all.
I was gone for a while due to personal situation change.
I just join a new work position and was very busy to move to this new "sea side" location.
Jan, is it possible to merge all concept and prototype in one tool ?
Could you please make a drawing as the "perfect knife setting" tool without artefact from TTS or any copyrighted tool ?
I have a capability to built a "composite" plate with high precision as prototype.
Thanks in advance.
Sheang, your interest pleases me! :)
Yes, if you give me some time*, I will prepare a simple technical drawing of the knife setter. Do you intend to make your own metal contact discs, or are you going to buy the original ones as a spare parts?
Jan
*P.S.: I'm a little bit busy right now because it starts here the traditional season of slaughtering domestic pigs. Very sharp knives and a cleaver are required for butchering.
(http://img15.rajce.idnes.cz/d1503/12/12265/12265406_ac0aa7e6612241f3d0dce1bf91611561/images/Lada_zabijacka_1.jpg?ver=0)
In the past, butchering was a trade passed from father to son, while today the initial slaughter is done by a professional butcher. Nevertheless the meat is still butchered by the owner's family and the process is accompanied by some amusing rituals.
Hi Jan,
In France , we also have some slaughtering domestic pigs in few regions. Brittany and South West. :D
More or less it is now more a folkloric tradition then an economical necessity as in the 19th century.
Back to your question, if I can buy the original one as spare parts, I am not sure about that, I will buy.
But before that I have a question. Are those metallic disc really needed ? What's the function ? If their role is only contact points, some simple pins could give the same reference ?
Anyway, you are the master of design, and I'll try to make them in the simplest way possible. :)
The rotating wheels easily verifies when proper contact is made with the grinding wheel. Both will rotate when the grinding wheel is turned by hand. If only one turns, proper contact or alignment is not being made. It would be more difficult to make that verification with the use of pins.
Sheang, thanks for confirming that the hog butchering tradition is still alive in France. :)
As explained by Elden, the Tormek concept of metal contact discs is clever and works fine. I recommend to use the original discs.
In the drawing below you can find the dimensions necessary to build a knife setter similar to TTS. The drawing is valid for knife jig and Ken's projection length 139 mm.
The figure shows positions of universal support for bevel angles 10, 15 and 20 degrees. All measures in the drawing are in mm.
Let me know if you can work with the *.dxf CAD file and I will make it available.
Jan
Many thanks Jan
Good point kb0rvo
Yes I can read and manage DXF CAD file.
One question, what's your recommendation about the thickness of the composite plate ?
Does this tool work with any T4 & T7 ? (from my understanding the answer is Yes, but I would like your confirmation.) :)
Last but not least, do you have any source to buy metal contact discs ?
Does Tormek sell them as spare parts ?
Cheers
You can download the DXF CAD file from the following address:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmyzjqnked8fwkq/Knife_setter_1.dxf?dl=1 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmyzjqnked8fwkq/Knife_setter_1.dxf?dl=1)
The original TTS-100 plate is 4 mm thick, but is extruded to 5 mm in places where the metal contact discs are inserted. Around the holes for the universal support the original plate is extruded to 16 mm.
My plastic plate was made of 8 mm thick polyethylene, but thicker plate or sandwich construction would be better.
The knife setter will work with both, T4 and T7. Its major advantage is, that it is practically not dependent on grinding stone/honing wheel diameter (in the range 160 to 250 mm).
The metal contact discs are listed as article 1250 in the TTS-100 parts breakdown list.
http://tormek.com/media/100848/tts-100-breakdown.pdf (http://tormek.com/media/100848/tts-100-breakdown.pdf)
Jan
In reading this post, I have one query to pose to the experts. Could the TTS-100 be used with the Universal Support positioned on the hole labeled "A", then adjust the projection length on SVM-xx jig for the desired angle ?
If this is an option, then it seems to me that a simple jig could be built for the projection, allowing for setup of 10-20 degrees of angle.
Yes, Rich, it can.
For a long time I have used the TTS-100 to set up my chisels and planes. I standardize on the B setting for chisels and plane blades with no camber, and the A setting when I add camber with plane blades.
I placed a blank piece of white label tape in one of the projection slots and marked the projection for different angles. To do this, set the universal support to grinding wheel distance with the TTS-100 using (for example) the A hole. Keep this as a fixed distance. Using either the anglemaster or black marker, determine the projection length for your desired angle. Mark that distance on your label tape. The process is quick and consistent.
If you wish, make up a simple wooden gage with a piece of plywood, a piece of wood under it to act as a stop on your bench, and a piece of wood on top to mark the projection length.
Ken
TTS-100 sets the edge angle correctly only for tools in the jigs SVD-185 and SVS-50.
The usage of the hole A of the TTS-100 for setting the universal support for knife sharpening is practically impossible.
The solution described by Ken, is for chisels in the square edge jig SE-76, but not for knifes. Setting of the edge angle in this way depends on the grindstone diameter.
In this thread I have described, how the TTS-100 can be redesigned for setting selected edge angles for knifes in the knife jig with some defined projection length (139 mm, kenjig). This setting is not dependent on the grindstone diameter. :)
Jan
My error. I confused SVM with SVD. (My Swedish abbreviation skill is not very good.)
Ken
Quote from: Jan on December 29, 2015, 12:52:13 PM
You can download the DXF CAD file from the following address:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmyzjqnked8fwkq/Knife_setter_1.dxf?dl=1 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmyzjqnked8fwkq/Knife_setter_1.dxf?dl=1)
The original TTS-100 plate is 4 mm thick, but is extruded to 5 mm in places where the metal contact discs are inserted. Around the holes for the universal support the original plate is extruded to 16 mm.
My plastic plate was made of 8 mm thick polyethylene, but thicker plate or sandwich construction would be better.
The knife setter will work with both, T4 and T7. Its major advantage is, that it is practically not dependent on grinding stone/honing wheel diameter (in the range 160 to 250 mm).
The metal contact discs are listed as article 1250 in the TTS-100 parts breakdown list.
http://tormek.com/international/en/accessories/other-accessories/tts-100-turning-tool-setter/ (http://tormek.com/international/en/accessories/other-accessories/tts-100-turning-tool-setter/)
Jan
Help Jan,
I got metallic in hand, they are original part from Tormek and I wonder what is he best way to integrate in the plate ?
They are made un one piece, turned aluminium disc, OD = 16 mm ID = 5 mm space length = 5 mm
Your help and comments are welcome.
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/02/1c95ad521b2b7dac3e45dfec3e53b697.th.jpg) (http://lght.pics/PKW)
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/02/cdc91017ead4b870b819fdc9961c2342.th.jpg) (http://lght.pics/PKs)
My plate is made in stainless steel 3 mm thick.
I am scratching my head, how to drill and integrate those disc ?
Thanks for your confidence, I believe we will find a solution when you already put so much effort in making this setter. :)
In the image below you can see, that the original metallic disc is squeezed in its hole in the plate.
(http://img21.rajce.idnes.cz/d2102/11/11771/11771137_37021e568ec44478b9ce7dc74d286378/images/TTS-Disc_640DPI.jpg?ver=0)
The diameter of the axis of the metallic disc is 6.0 mm. The inlet opening to the hole which bears the metallic disc is 5.7 mm. Thanks to the elastic properties of the TTS plate you can squeeze the disc in the hole and it will not fall out.
For the time being, I have two alternative solutions for you:
1) Use the Tormek approach, but make the inlet opening 6.0 mm wide. Prepare two narrow steel strips, 1 mm thick, which will ensure that the metallic discs will not fall out of the plate and which will also define the axial clearance (1 mm + 3 mm + 1mm = 5mm).
2) Make the plate from suitable 5 mm thick plastic and use the Tormek approach.
Jan
Thanks Jan for your thoughts.
My idea is to drill the axial hole at 6 mm and make the inlet opening at 5,8 mm.
Use the the property of metal expansion by heating the plate in an oven, fit the disc, and let the jig cool down naturally. Do you think that it can work ?
I need to find an algorithm or an table about metal expansion by heat treatment to be sure about the inlet opening dimension and estimate the temperature needed to be set-up.
The linear thermal expansion coefficient for stainless steel is in the range 10 to 17 x 10-6 K-1 at 20oC.
I am afraid, that heating the plate to melting point temperature, will not be sufficient for the extension of the inlet opening by 0.2 mm, even when taking into account that the coefficient of expansion increases with temperature.
Jan
I would try matching the Tormek hole and slot pattern and try pushing the wheels in. That worked for Tormek; it should work for Tormekers.
Ken
I am exploring another solution around ball bearing to substitute the metallic disc, it will simplify the mounting process on the plate.
Ken, my plate is in Stainless steel so, not really elastic as TTS's plastic plate.
Comments ?
The wheels are a clever way to easily verify that both points are making contact with the grinding wheel. (Painting a single spoke on each wheel makes this even more obvious.)
Using stainless steel is certainly elegant, but is perhaps"overkill". The wheels could be replaced by plain "bumps" to make contact. The user would have to observe the contact points more closely, however it should work.
I planned to make my prototype out of baltic birch plywood, like my kenjig. I already have it in stock, it is easy to work, and, if it didn't work it would be easy to modify or replace.
Keep up your good work!
Ken
hello Ken and Jan,
With your help and recommendations in this topic, I finally made 2 Stainless steel Kenjig.
Here is the first one based on double ball bearing.
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/17/6e626b4dff87ea97c7ff92c4e82199a9.md.jpg) (http://lght.pics/P8s)
Double ball bearing in situation :
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/17/05408d2e95c15402e59333f4682a1d1e.md.jpg) (http://lght.pics/P8Q)
Here is the second one based on single ball bearing
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/17/6b454aa92889dc5acde66f6ccf38ae23.md.jpg) (http://lght.pics/P81)
Single ball bearing in situation :
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/17/153c27c4c97e9e701d5269a67931f730.md.jpg) (http://lght.pics/P84)
Your comments are welcome, I'll try to improve if needed.
Best regards
Very cool! Great work, Tournevis. :)
Congrats for overcoming the difficulties with the original metallic discs, your solution with the ball bearings is perfect. They are wider than the Tormek metallic discs and will help to stabilise your knife setter on the grindstone. This is especially important because your plate is not extruded around the holes for the universal support.
It is a great pleasure for me to see your cool implementation of my geometrical concept for a knife setter similar to TTS-100. Moreover in the embodiment of such noble material as stainless steel. Simply brilliant. :)
Please compare your knife bevel angle setting with Tormek Angle Master and let me know if the angles are the same. The function of the knife setter should not depend on the wheel diameter, it should work flawlessly also for the honing wheel.
Jan
P.S.: Perfect photo documentation also!
Well done, Tournevis!!!
Ken
Quote from: Jan on February 17, 2016, 08:31:40 PM
Very cool! Great work, Tournevis. :)
Congrats for overcoming the difficulties with the original metallic discs, your solution with the ball bearings is perfect. They are wider than the Tormek metallic discs and will help to stabilise your knife setter on the grindstone. This is especially important because your plate is not extruded around the holes for the universal support.
It is a great pleasure for me to see your cool implementation of my geometrical concept for a knife setter similar to TTS-100. Moreover in the embodiment of such noble material as stainless steel. Simply brilliant. :)
Please compare your knife bevel angle setting with Tormek Angle Master and let me know if the angles are the same. The function of the knife setter should not depend on the wheel diameter, it should work flawlessly also for the honing wheel.
Jan
P.S.: Perfect photo documentation also!
The full story of composite and steel come from the fact that sandwich composite plate of 5 mm thick cannot meet the "high precision" needed for the tool. Tolerance for this material is more or less between 0,5 mm and 1 mm. :o
That's why I chose stainless steel. With the range of tolerance of 0,1mm, stainless steel is more appropriate. ;)
Then the difficulty about original metallic disc fitting came up and by chance, I found the perfect dimension from a bearing catalogue. OD = 16mm ID = 5 mm and the cost is ridiculously low : 0,7 Euro piece. :-[
Then I decided to give a try for this solution Knowing that in worst case, as my drilling for the screw is only 5 mm I still can enlarge the hole to 6mm to suit the metallic disc if needed. ;D
During my trial I found out that the reading during adjustment is easier with the single bearing version. But perhaps it is an illusion. I'll confirm this feeling when I'll run a sharpening session for real.
For sure, as Ken stated, this solution (ball bearing and stainless steel) is an "Overkill" solution for a tool. But I am sure that is a multi generational life time solution. 8)
I take your point to compare some sharpening result with your tool and Tormek Angle Master. I am already pretty sure that Kenjanjig is much faster to set-up than Angle Master. ;D
Thanks for all.
Thanks for additional info to your new knife setter.
You will see that the angle setting with your knife setter is faster than with the Angle Master, but the simple wooden Kenjig is the fastest. :) The knife setter or Kenjig is especially useful for knifes with tapered blade, for which correct setting of the bevel angle with the Angle Master is challenging.
If you have the possibility to engrave some inscription on the plate, than I recommend the bevel angles 10°, 15° and 20° and also "Projection length 139 mm".
Jan
I figured you would find and use a sexbolt to replace those Tormek parts. I think the bearings work better though, and IMHO, I like the single bearing one better (can easily see both sides touching), where the double bearing one makes me wonder if the wheel is developing a crown.
I would suggest drawing a couple ines on the bearings. That makes it very easy to see when the bearings are turning. (I drew a single spoke on the Tormek wheels on my TTS-100.)
Ken
Quote from: Jan on February 18, 2016, 01:13:38 PM
If you have the possibility to engrave some inscription on the plate, than I recommend the bevel angles 10°, 15° and 20° and also "Projection length 139 mm".
Improvement action planned on Version 2 :D
Quote from: Ken S on February 18, 2016, 11:05:21 PM
I would suggest drawing a couple ines on the bearings. That makes it very easy to see when the bearings are turning. (I drew a single spoke on the Tormek wheels on my TTS-100.)
Improvement action planned on Version 2 :D
Quote from: SharpenADullWitt on February 18, 2016, 09:19:36 PM
I like the single bearing one better (can easily see both sides touching)
Fully agree, but need return on experience to confirm. :) At this time it is only "feeling" so not factual.
I am very pleased to share your experience and your kindness, I wonder how to buy more time for sharpening, should I wait until retirement ? If yes, two long years to wait. :'(
Quote from: Tournevis on February 19, 2016, 07:45:57 AM
I am very pleased to share your experience and your kindness, I wonder how to buy more time for sharpening, should I wait until retirement ? If yes, two long years to wait. :'(
Do not worry, the two years will run away quickly like wild horses and you will be fully free for sharpening. :)
Jan
Sheang, what would you charge to make me a double bearing model (2 bearings each, front & back)? I really like the Tormek TTS-100 for its simplicity & repeatability. This jig you have made shows promise for the same with knives, & would make a nice addition to my jigs set (jig addiction?).
Tournevis, it seems you have created a niche market for the cool knife setter. ;)
Jan
Rich,
Like you, I have a certain jig addiction with Tormek. (I have referred to myself as a "Tormek junkie".) This particular tool seems well designed and useful.
As forum moderator, I would be more comfortable if transactions like this were handled through personal messaged (PM). This is a gray area, and one I would prefer to avoid the possibility of either me or Sweden having to make a policy decision.
Ken
Sir, good point. Thank you for helping us stay focused.
Rich,
Please don't feel bad. Actually, I hope this transaction works out well for you. I am of two minds in this kind of situation. I try to be sensitive to the non commercial side of the forum. We are Tormek's guests. However, the ideas put forth for new tools, in my opinion, have been useful and do not compete with Tormek's offerings. I am pleased with the creativity and utility achieved by the forum members. In fact, I must confess to being one of the participants in this.
The purpose of this forum is to help the members become more efficient with the Tormek. This tool, and several other member designed tools achieve that goal.
While I prefer actual transactions be completed off forum, I do hope your request is successful, and that after you achieve good successusing it you will post your review and thoughts.
Keep posting.
Ken
One of the things I find fascinating about this forum is how ideas develop. In the quest for a simpler method of setting bevel angles for knives (but not limited to knives) we have created several working tools. The creative computing power of the forum together definitely exceeds the sum of the individuals. I see this variety as very healthy. The variety offers options to ourmembers.
Some may opt for the simple wooden tool, which can be constructed in five minutes and will require another minute every year to remain accurate.
Some will like the idea of adapting a TTS-100 and needing no further calibration.
Some will like the Rolls-Royce stainless option!
Some will devise other and perhaps more useful options. I hope they will post.
Stay tuned......
Ken
Quote from: Tournevis on February 19, 2016, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: SharpenADullWitt on February 18, 2016, 09:19:36 PM
I like the single bearing one better (can easily see both sides touching)
Fully agree, but need return on experience to confirm. :) At this time it is only "feeling" so not factual.
I wonder how to buy more time for sharpening, should I wait until retirement ? If yes, two long years to wait. :'(
If you figure that out, let me know. I visit here, but don't get a lot of shop time for any purposes (at least 20 years to retirement).
Quote from: Ken S on February 19, 2016, 01:15:38 PM
Rich,
As forum moderator, I would be more comfortable if transactions like this were handled through personal messaged (PM). This is a gray area, and one I would prefer to avoid the possibility of either me or Sweden having to make a policy decision.
Ken
While I agree the actual transaction needs to be completed elsewhere, I am glad he posted this expressing interest. I see this as the same as the extended support, or the Sharpening video's, that others may not have time to make and would like a useful tool. (let the originator know so they could figure out time verses costs, etc).
Good thoughts, SADW.
Don't count on having lots of spare shop time in retirement. I have been "retired" for seven years. I actually had more shop time when I was still working. Other responsibilities can creep in and fill your time.
I can't speak for Steve or Robin. I would be delighted and surprised if their Tormek related offerings are actually profitable. That is sad, as they both offer useful products at a very fair price.
I can share results for the kenjig. I have given away perhaps six. If I was keeping books, I would have perhaps a dollar in scrap baltic birch plywood and a higher figure in postage costs. Sales revenue=000.
Tormek has expressed no interest in the idea and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has built one for himself (although I have encouraged this).
The idea needs a good video. I plan to do that in the future. I still believe in the idea, and the more sophisticated offspring.
I have never expected or wanted to profit from any of my forum ideas. I am pleased if others can profit from their ideas. I know there are development costs to recoup, and someone should benefit from his ideas.
I welcome ideas and products which advance the Tormek. In the years since I have been a Tormek user, Tormek has produced some remarkable innovations. I also think Herman's small knife jig is as remarkable an innovation as those coming from Sweden. I believe these bevel setting devices will prove to have the same level of value.
I am looking forward to new ideas from all sources.
Ken
Quote from: Tournevis on February 17, 2016, 06:25:23 PM
hello Ken and Jan,
With your help and recommendations in this topic, I finally made 2 Stainless steel Kenjig.
Here is the first one based on double ball bearing.
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/17/6e626b4dff87ea97c7ff92c4e82199a9.md.jpg) (http://lght.pics/P8s)
Double ball bearing in situation :
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/17/05408d2e95c15402e59333f4682a1d1e.md.jpg) (http://lght.pics/P8Q)
I'm a big fanSheang sent me the double bearing model (I call it the "Han-Jig"), & I got it this weekend. Used it to setup my Tormek to sharpen a number of knives. This thing is the bee's knees.
I'm a big fan of using the TTS-100 to setup for sharpening my lathe tools, & the Han-Jig is really like using the TTS, but for knives.
Sheang did a great job : This is something worth making for a compleat set of jigs !!
Rich,
Well done!
When I was sharpening some plane blades (with camber) this weekend, I noticed that the first blade was not quite square for the initial sharpening. I took a very light truing cut with the TT-50. To my surprise, it took several very light truing cuts (less than half a number) to fully true the SG-250. I have become convinced that making a very light truing cut should be part of the routine when doing critical sharpening. Post truing, the plane blade was quite square.
I set up the SE-77 using the TTS-100. I have become convinced of the value of the self compensating feature for wheel diameter. my wheel has shed another 5mm diameter. With the TTS-100 or bearings, change is not a problem.
Incidentally, Rich, my original motivation for developing the kenjig was not for knives. It was for carving tools for a forum member who carves and with older eyes, has trouble seeing the anglemaster at times.
keep up the good work!
Ken
RichColvin, nice to read that the Han-Jig is cool for you. :)
Besides functionality it has even some conservative design features.
The stainless steel base adds nobleness and longevity to the product.
Jan
Quote from: RichColvin on May 30, 2016, 11:34:28 PM
Sheang sent me the double bearing model (I call it the "Han-Jig"), & I got it this weekend. Used it to setup my Tormek to sharpen a number of knives. This thing is the bee's knees.
I'm a big fan of using the TTS-100 to setup for sharpening my lathe tools, & the Han-Jig is really like using the TTS, but for knives.
Sheang did a great job : This is something worth making for a compleat set of jigs !!
Rich,
I am happy to see that you are satisfied with the Jig. As it is unbreakable made, I hope that it will serve for next generation of sharpeners.
Do not hesitate to report any potential problem or possible improvement to share.
This is the best way for the community to progress.
Enjoy :)
Quote from: RichColvin on May 30, 2016, 11:34:28 PM
Quote from: Tournevis on February 17, 2016, 06:25:23 PM
hello Ken and Jan,
With your help and recommendations in this topic, I finally made 2 Stainless steel Kenjig.
Here is the first one based on double ball bearing.
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/17/6e626b4dff87ea97c7ff92c4e82199a9.md.jpg) (http://lght.pics/P8s)
Double ball bearing in situation :
(http://storage.lightpics.net/2016/02/17/05408d2e95c15402e59333f4682a1d1e.md.jpg) (http://lght.pics/P8Q)
What do we need for a "compleat" set of jigs? (For the benefit of our members who use English as a second language, "compleat
I'm a big fan
Sheang sent me the double bearing model (I call it the "Han-Jig"), & I got it this weekend. Used it to setup my Tormek to sharpen a number of knives. This thing is the bee's knees.
I'm a big fan of using the TTS-100 to setup for sharpening my lathe tools, & the Han-Jig is really like using the TTS, but for knives.
Sheang did a great job : This is something worth making for a compleat set of jigs !!
Woodworking is a very old trade, and compleat is a very old adjective. (Even though Tormek is a relatively new tool in these terms!)
In Britain, compleat is archaic, used in writing only as a bit of whimsy, and at that rather rarely. It is more common in North America, though often equally whimsical.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says that compleat is just an archaic spelling of complete. It died out around the end of the eighteenth century. One of its last appearances was a reference to George III in the US Declaration of Independence: "He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny". The OED also says that one sense of the word refers to a person who is accomplished, "especially in reference to a particular art or pursuit".
This sense died out in Britain in the early nineteenth century but was reintroduced in the archaic spelling at the beginning of the twentieth. For this we must blame Isaak Walton, the author of The Compleat Angler, or the Contemplative Man's Recreation; Being a Discourse of Fish and Fishing, not unworthy the perusal of most Anglers. Writing in 1653, he naturally used the older spelling of complete and modern editions retain it.
Because Isaak Walton's book title has remained so well-known, one unexpected result has been that the word in that spelling and in that old sense has been taken as a model in modern times. For example, when Messrs W and A Gilbey published a book on wine in 1953, they couldn't resist calling it The Compleat Imbiber. You may also find phrases like compleat actor, for someone who has all the skills and qualities of that craft. And the science-fiction writer Ben Bova wrote in his book Mars in 1992: "Jamie realized that his father had become the compleat academic: nothing really touched him anymore; he saw everything in the abstract". This usage, as I say, is more common in the US than in Britain.
So the short answer is that compleat and complete were originally different spellings of the same word, but under the influence of Isaak Walton's book title the older spelling has taken on a distinct meaning, especially in modern American English.
OOPS!
I neglected to include the message in my last post.
Rich, you have certainly done the compleat definition of compleat and compleat. In my anecdotal version, a compleat building maintenance man would carry enough tools to rewire the building on a ticket to change a light bulb. The complete worker would carry a couple spare bulbs.
For Tormek set up jigs, I think a workable complete set up would try to standardize the number of distance variations from the universal support to the grinding wheel to a minimum. Holes A and B on the TTS-100 will cover a lot of tools. As designed, they cover turning gouges. I use them as standards for chisels and planes. If I was a carver, I would try to use them for most carving tools.
I like the way some of us have incorporated the TTS-100's auto compensation for changing od grinding wheel diameter into homemade jigs. I especially like the Hanjig's incorporation of three distance holes in a stainless steel construction!
Family calls.......
Ken
I had the rare opportunity of checking out the Han Jig this afternoon. (I believe it is the only sample in the western hemisphere!) Sheang, you did a really nice job both of the design and the machining. You did a good job of incorporating the compensating bearings with Jan's precision hole location and did it all in stainless steel.
As always, I acknowledge Dutchman's well done trig tables as the basis point.
See "a Tormek afternoon" to learn how I saw the Han Jig.
The "Han-jig" or adjustment tool is nice. Although it would be interesting to see it in practice job.
The "only" problem, as I see, is the different protrusion of the knifes in the SVS-45 jig that will make the tip leaning on different parts of the stone creating different angles on the blade.
Or maybe I didn't understand the full way of using it :-[
I started to work on similar idea but with 2 parts connected in the centre and with knife length scale.
Anyone that can take this idea further is welcome. I just don't have time to complete this.
WolfY,
The Han Jig works on the principle that most kitchen knives can be set to a protrusion of 139mm. To reach this condistency, paring knives are used in the regular knife jig mounted in the small blade tool. I mount my slicing knife in the older 100mm wide jig and the chef's knife in the 140 mm wide jig.
I measured the minimum and maximum protrusion for each jig with a knife attached. 139mm fell in the middle range for all three. With a common protrusion length, the distance from the universal support to the grinding wheel is consistent. With my simpler kenjig, I had no automatic diameter change correction like the TTS-100 has. The Han-Jig incorporates this automatic correction.
With this setup, someone working a farmers' market sharpening booth should in theory be able to set the distance between the universal support to the grinding wheel only one time (for kitchen knives only, possible only in theory). If that distance needed to be changed for pocket knives or scissors, using the Han Jig would reset it precisely and very quickly.
By using the three knife jigs essentially preset, most of the time even the knife jigs would not even have to be adjusted at all. Minor variations in knives could be covered by how much of the knife was held by the jig. The set up gage is a simple piece of plywood with a pencil line scribed 139mm from one end. The opposite end is held against the adjustable stop where the universal support would rest. The knife edge is set to the 139mm line.
Using this method, a sharpener should be able to rival the speed of a handheld sharpener with the crisp bevels of the Tormek jigs.
Questions? Please feel free to ask.
Ken
ps We must credit Dutchman and Jan as part of the design team.
Quote from: Ken S on June 10, 2016, 04:31:30 AM
ps We must credit Dutchman and Jan as part of the design team.
Great minds creating great ideas. Thanks.
In order to find the "right"/ former angle I always use a marker. But there is no always a distinct angle to find so I use my experience. After so many knifes I know the approximate installation of the knives considering thickness, width, length, and angle needed/ asked.
Another tip is: I try to fasten the knife at the jig with same length from jig base to curved part of blade tip as the blade end from the jig base. Then I follow the knife curve when sharpening which gives me as close angle as possible trough the hole sharpening process, following an imaginary line on the stone. Little lifting of the tip is always required of course.
WolfY,
The photos of the Han Jig unfortunately do not include the angle markings on the other side, 10, 15, and 20 degrees. I based the original kenjig on providing a fifteen degree bevel, a figure suggested by Stig as the European standard for kitchen knives. The calculations were based on the grinding angle booklet posted by Dutchman on the forum. Dutchman worked out the trig; all I did was make up a very simple tool applying it and standardizing the protrusion distance. The original idea was to provide an alternative to individual measurement for beginners and those of us whose eyes are no longer young.
Like you, I keep a black marker very nearby. The kenjig could have just as easily been calibrated using the marker or the Anglemaster. Using Dutchman's tables, it could also be calibrated to different bevel angles, protrusions or distances. Fifteen degrees was just a commonly used standard. In fact, I use a small square of 6mm plywood placed beneath the tool to convert to twenty degrees. I wanted to keep the tool simple both for beginners and busy sharpeners who have to sharpen many knives quickly. It works on the same principle of gage blocks used by machinists to provide very accurate and repeatable measurements.
The kenjig and Han Jig essentially eliminate the need to use the marker or Anglemaster most of the time. This is not only faster, it is more accurate, as no individual measurement error is introduced. No distinct angle on the knife is necessary.
This method, like yours, works better with proper and careful technique, such as consistency in placing the knife in the jig.
Ken
Ken, you are the prime mover of the project. :)
You are correct, Han Jig incorporates an automatic diameter change correction like the TTS-100. It is Tormek's invention. ;)
I managed to pierce the veil of the secret**, designed and tested the modified knife setter prototype.
Tournevis (Sheang Han) manufactured a fully functional samples from massive stainless steel and inventively replaced the metallic discs with bearings.
Rich Colvin is the first satisfied user who said that this thing is the bee's knees.
Jan
**P.S.:The Little Prince said:"... what is essential is invisible to the eye".
Pls find hereby my knife angle master project. Had no time to work on it further. It has similar thinking but I also made it versatile for different angles and protrusion combinations.
Anyone who wants to continue this project is welcome.
(http://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y441/grepper00/WolfY_zps7swd235i.png)
WolfY,
Please check your forum messages. (I sent you two,)
Ken
Jan, if by chance I happen to be the prime mover in this project, I will share my secret. When I first saw Dutchman's work, it seemed too complicated for my almost fifty years ago high school math. I believe most of the forum members who read it felt the same way. The difference was that I recognized the value of his work and quietly concentrated on dusting off my brain. It was an effort, but very much worth the time involved. Dutchman opened up a whole new set up technique for me.
In fact, understanding Dutchman's work is no more complicated than understanding futbol, football, or basketball. I think Rob may even understand cricket. He has the two qualifications to fo that: he is very smart and he is British. The difference is that we learn about sports as young children. Becoming more fluent with mathematics generally involves learning or relearning as an adult. It can be done and it is rewarding.
Ken
Please scroll up to WolfY's reply (two back in this post). With some computer assistance from Grepper (thanks, Mark), WolfY's drawing is now posted. It looks interesting!
Ken
Thanks Ken and guys for your help.
It would br great if you could gear up and as team complete it to a final Product. I just don't have enough time and tools to speed it up.
Quote from: WolfY on June 10, 2016, 02:17:38 PM
Pls find hereby my knife angle master project. Had no time to work on it further. It has similar thinking but I also made it versatile for different angles and protrusion combinations.
Anyone who wants to continue this project is welcome.
(http://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y441/grepper00/WolfY_zps7swd235i.png)
For the correct functioning of the setter the position of the centre of rotation of the arm is crucial. :)
The arm should pivot around a centre situated between the metallic discs at a place where the tool meets the grindstone. I have added this position as a red dot to WolfY's sketch. This point is slightly beyond the setter base. It is challenging, nevertheless it can be realised. ;)
(http://img21.rajce.idnes.cz/d2102/11/11771/11771137_37021e568ec44478b9ce7dc74d286378/images/Wolfy_jig_1_622.jpg?ver=0)
Jan
Jan,
I had not thought of pivoting around a specific point along the arc. (Is arc the correct term?) My original idea did not include automatic diameter correction, and was only designed for one angle and protrusion. I believe these more sophisticated models are definitely improvements.
WolfY,
The three hash lines on the main jig near the pivot point, are they for different angles?
Will there be calibration marks on the extendable lever?
I look forward to learning more about this jig!
Ken
Ken, my comment in reply #91 concerns a setter which includes an automatic diameter correction.
If the setter should be designed only for one specific stone diameter the situation is significantly simpler. :)
Jan
The model I was working on is only a first thoughts put in a 3D draw without to much detail thoughts.
Yes, the markes are for different angles and the arm for different protrusion. There should be marks for it too.
Naturally different design and Mark I g solutions are welcome as I also have some thoughts about it. But most important is to figure out the settings and see if they work on all stone diameters and most common knife widths.
Jan,
I realized the point was for automatic diameter correction. I assume the point will be equidistant between the wheels.?
The more I use the Tormek, the more I value automatic diameter correction. My present SG-250 is actually an SZg-238. My SB-250 is presently an SB-247. Both are in gradual flux. If I had a sharpening business, they would be in greater flux.
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on June 15, 2016, 06:29:45 PM
Jan,
I realized the point was for automatic diameter correction. I assume the point will be equidistant between the wheels.?
Ken
Yes Ken, you are correct. The position of the pivot point (shown as red dot) is better visible in the 2D drawing below:
(http://img8.rajce.idnes.cz/d0803/12/12121/12121060_5e249ca78c74a6b5d45884e299c5c95d/images/FIG_1_700_DPI.jpg?ver=0)
Because this pivot point is beyond the setter base, the solution is not easy. E.g.: the rotary arm of the WolfY's setter may be guided by two concentric rings with the centre in the pivot point.
I am really afraid that this is too complicated for the majority of forum members.
Jan
Jan,
Your drawing is quite remarkable!
Ken
On the last few days I'm bothered with the thoughts about this topic.
Is it important to have a jig for knife or is it preferably to use the marker method and the experience as sharpener knowing by experience how to adjust the sharpening angle.
Will it really help or just make it more time consuming dealing with details. How accurate will it be compared to working without a jig.
Is working with the WM-200 good enough and can get me close to the angle I'm looking for anyway without complicating it.
One reason I don't like the WM-200 is the fact that you have to look at it from the side when the knife is on the stone, having the knife point, pointing at you and endanger the viewer, if by mistake getting to close for the reading.
Another reasons I let of using the WM-200 for knifes is the fact that most chef's knives are shaped as long triangle and sometime with convex form making it difficult to measure.
Does it matter? I know that the unparalleled form is "worth" about 1.5 dgrs on each side. Why not just subtract if from the reading and be as close as possible for the starting point and continue from there?
Just some thoughts. Mostly cause I have to teach other users (chefs, butchers etc...) how to find the sharpening angle easily.
Just my thoughts, worth what you paid.....
I think the marker method is quite fine for matching the angle. Where the anglemaster comes in handy is for us, more occasional sharpeners and those who want to change the angles. Some of the pro sharpeners, or those that have more experience then I and some others do (and those who aren't afraid of ahem, screwing up someones good knives), can probably do the freehand thing well.
Those that you teach, show them the techniques that you know (both jig and not) and let them choose what works for them.
WolfY,
I have found the Anglemaster to be a valuable tool for setting a new bevel angle. When the existing bevel angle is to be replicated and is still enough remaining to use the marker, I prefer to use the marker method.
The Anglemaster works fine by itself with tools like chisels and plane irons, which have a large flat measuring surface. With tools like knives, which have narrow bevels and tapered surfaces, I prefer to substitute a piece of flat metal or plastic in the jig which has the same protrusion and approximate same thickness.
The Anglemaster must be used in strong light to work efficiently. General overhead shop lighting is insufficient for this.
My reservation with the Anglemaster is that it requires going through the set up routine with each tool. This is not a problem with one tool, however, quickly becomes tedious with multiple tools.
My purpose in developing the kenjig was to simplify knife set up for the beginner and make sharpening with knife jigs more efficient for the business sharpener. A farmers' market sharpener, like Steve, must be able to quickly sharpen perhaps a hundred knives in a morning. Individual set up with the Anglemaster is too slow in this environment, as is use of the marker. That's why freehand sharpening is the general practice.
Steve has made the comment that even with his years of experience, careful freehand sharpening does not equal the precision of using a Tormek knife jig. The actual grinding time is the same, whether the sharpener grinds freehand or with a Tormek knife jig. The difference is the time required for set up. That is where the kenjig and later versions come into play.
There are two elements in set up: 1) the distance between the universal support and the grinding wheel and 2) the protrusion of the jig and knife from the universal support. Once these two are initially set, there is no need to waste time with individual set up.
The kenjig can be made for any bevel angle. On Stig's advice, I chose fifteen degrees bevel angle (thirty degrees edge angle. See the handbook for these definitions.) The jig was designed using Dutchman's tables from the forum.
The distance from the universal support to the grinding wheel is quickly set once. As long as the knives to be sharpened have fifteen degree bevel angles, there is no need to change this.
I use three Tormek knife jigs, the regular knife jig with the small blade tool for paring knives; one (a discontinued but available used SVM-100) for slicing knives; and the SVM-140 for chef's knives. All knives are set to the common protrusion distance of 139mm. With a little care in placing the knives in the jigs, the protrusion setting of the jigs should rarely need any fine tuning.
Setup approaches being automatic and should come close to working freehand. It is also consistent.
Later versions of the jig, such as the Han-Jig, have incorporated settings for different bevel angles and automatic correction for wheel diameter reduction. Both of these are notable improvements.
There is still a need for freehand sharpening skill and Herman's small blade jig. When I demonstrated the Tormek, I was surprised how many people carry very small pen knives, the term going back to the era when these small knives were actually used for quill pens. The Tormek small blade tool works well with carving tools with very small blades and generous handles. It works less well with pen knives with tiny handles. Herman's jig or freehand shine here.
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on June 21, 2016, 10:32:08 AM
Steve has made the comment that even with his years of experience, careful freehand sharpening does not equal the precision of using a Tormek knife jig.
Can't agree more. Freehand sharpening is "not" Tormek :) It is impossible to sharpen precise no matter how experienced you are. There are just too many forces that affect the movement.
In my opinion setting the knife in a jig is what makes the big difference and advantage compared to others. Why take that away? It only takes 10 seconds to do it.
Besides I'm keeping the jig for honing too giving me more control of the honing process. I don't turn the machine 180 dgrs. Just holding the knife edge towards me, after sharpening against the wheel.
Quote from: Ken S on June 21, 2016, 10:32:08 AM
All knives are set to the common protrusion distance of 139mm. Why the hack 139 and not 140? :)
The only problem with 139mm or another set is that the jig have only 13mm space inside and you need minimum 2~3 mm to hold the knife, giving you 10mm play. The other place to control the protrusion is the adjusting knob that gives about 20mm. Probably it's enough for most chef's knives but not all knifes.
Having to sharpen lots of knives on an afternoon in the market is not giving enough time to start measuring the angles. I'm not sure it's even necessary. Measuring is good only for beginners before they got the feeling for the angle and for ppl that really ask for specific angle.
Cheers
WolfY
May be you know I have developed a special platform for sharpening knifes in a horizontal position.
(http://img21.rajce.idnes.cz/d2103/11/11709/11709430_28620584321cb814b04ba1648f79a5d3/images/Flat_platform_100.jpg?ver=0)
(http://img21.rajce.idnes.cz/d2103/11/11709/11709430_28620584321cb814b04ba1648f79a5d3/images/ELDEN_IMG_3889.jpg?ver=0)
When the blade is horizontal, than the laser line defines the bevel angle. The laser line can be also used without the platform for freehand sharpening and will help you to sharpen the desired bevel angle (18o for the situation shown in the picture above). :)
Jan
WolfY,
Re: your paragraph beginning with "the only problem" : I agree. That's why I use separate jigs for paring, slicing, and chef's knives. That lets me leave each jig set very close to the final setting. We have some wiggle room with the knife placement, and can fine tune with the jig protrusion if necessary.
There will be some fine tuning, however, it should be minor.
Incidentally, I use one of Robin Bailey's oversize universal supports and a second kenjig for sharpening my Chinese cleaver. That's another story........
Ken
Jan,
That was an ambitious project. Very nice. Kan you make a VDO of you sharpening different knives on it?
Ken,
"the only problem" and another (knife centering) with the standard knife jigs is sort of solved. I'm waiting for a friend to help me with the real prototype. Don't tell anyone ;)
WolfY
No problem, WolfY, my lips are sealed.
Ken
Quote from: WolfY on June 21, 2016, 03:36:26 AM
On the last few days I'm bothered with the thoughts about this topic.
Is it important to have a jig for knife or is it preferably to use the marker method and the experience as sharpener knowing by experience how to adjust the sharpening angle.
I think, both. Sometimes I want to match an existing angle, other times I need to establish the angle.
QuoteWill it really help or just make it more time consuming dealing with details. How accurate will it be compared to working without a jig.
To me, this is a separate issue. Knowing the angle is one thing, but keeping the angle consistent is another. You definitely need to keep the angle constant as you grind. Some people can do this by eye, but I'm not one of them. I need some kind of a jig to keep the angle consistent. Whether that angle was established using the marker method, or is a known number of degrees.
One of the things I find so fascinating about working with the Tormek is its versatility. One can follow the "orthodox" Tormek technique and obtain very acceptably sharp results. This may or may not be the most practical choice in all situations. Even the "holy scriptures", the handbook, sometimes offers different methods. In addition to using the Anglemaster, the black marker is suggested. Digging a little deeper, one will find the use of gage blocks to set the distance (between the universal support and the grinding wheel).
My kenjig combines a variation on the wooden gage blocks with the wooden stop block technique used commonly before the TTS-100. These techniques still work and, in my opinion, are more accurate than continuing remeasurement with the Anglemaster.
The Anglemaster offers a reliable technique. I found my greatest difficulty in using it was overcome by using proper light. This is actually discussed in the handbook.
Countless tools were sharpened with the Tormek before the present jigs, even before the universal support. The well trained Tormeker will be fluent with several techniques. I watched an experienced Tormek sharpener struggling to sharpen a very small and very dull parting tool with the prescribed jig. The tool really was too small for the jig. Using just the universal support would have made quick work of the job.
We need to be versatile as ooerators of this versatile machine.
Ken
Of course I could be laboring under a delusion, but I am dubious that anyone can really hand sharpen and maintain a truly consistent angle.
If you know of someone who can do it, take a knife they have sharpened, put it under a microscope and examine the bevel.
I'll bet a proper pint there is micro beveling up and down along the "main" bevel.
That doesn't mean it won't be sharp, it just shows wasted strokes away from the cutting edge.
Sometimes when a jig won't work, or it's just quicker and/or "good enough" hand sharpening is super quick and just fine. Onion other hand, if someone is all fussy about a perfect bevel and specific angle, for me at least and jig is necessary.
I agree with you Herman and Grepper.
After I've "studied" some VDO's of freehand sharpeners and I can bet 100% for sure no matter how experienced the sharpener is, he can't hold the knife 100% at the right angle either from beginning of the process or during it, for sure. As there is friction against the stone the hand will move back and forth and "loose" the angle.
For those who don't agree, it's easy to see if you make a VDO of yourself, freehand sharpening, using camera angle from the side of the stone.
I use jig 100% of the time. It's accurate and saves time.
WolfY,
You are making the original point of this topic. I think we all agree that using the Tormek knife jigs is the best way to make accurate bevels. I also think we all agree that the time involved in traditional set up of the knife in the jig, especially when a variety of knives must be sharpened in a limited time, is a slower process than sharpening free hand. The purpose of our forum designed and made tools is to lessen the time gap between the two and make jig sharpening more practical (and profitable) for a busy sharpener.
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on June 23, 2016, 10:16:17 AM
I also think we all agree that the time involved in traditional set up of the knife in the jig, especially when a variety of knives must be sharpened in a limited time, is a slower process than sharpening free hand.
Sorry, Ken, I can't agree with that. With my homemade platform jig I can sharpen a variety of knives after setting up the jig just one time. Also, since I don't need to use one hand to hold the jig in place, I have a free hand available to adjust the height of the Universal Support. The other hand is holding the Angle Master. As long as each knife is sharpened at the same bevel angle, I don't need to make any adjustments between knives. If I do have to change the bevel angle, it's a quick and easy process. I don't know why Tormek doesn't make a platform jig like this. It's really the same jig as the SVD-110 Tool Rest, but with the platform much closer to the Universal Support.
Herman,
You are quite correct. I did not intentionally omit your platform jig; I just think of it as a slightly different, but very effective path and my peripheral vision wasn't working very well. Your platform jig is certainly as fast as freehand sharpening.. I can't speak from personal experience, however, I do not doubt that it is very sufficiently accurate.
I use the Tormek small blade tool with the kenjig because it allows the same protrusion with paring knives as the regular jigs with larger knives. Hence, the 139mm standard. I have found that Tormek's small blade tool works well with small blades, as long as they have reasonably large handles. For small knives, such as pen knives and scalples, the Tormek tool is no match for your platform jig. I have frequently posted my belief that a well equipped sharpener should have both.
As to why Tormek does not make a small platform jig, I have two thoughts:
1)The small platform does not grasp the knife securely. This does not seem to quite fit the Tormek "jig held" sharpening philosophy, althouth the regular Tormek platform jig does not grasp the knife, either.
2) Tormek, like any company, likes the financial security of holding patents on its products. As such, any early mention of an idea would weaken their chance of receiving a patent. Tormek may have chosen not to manufacture a small platform jig because it was born on this forum. That would be unfortunate, as I do not believe any of the forum pioneers wished to profit from the idea, and would prefer Tormek produce the jig.
As I have also stated before, I do not believe your platform jig has reached its full potential. I can see other uses for it, perhaps with interchangeable platforms.
Keep thinking!
Ken
Quote from: Herman Trivilino on June 23, 2016, 05:26:26 PM
Sorry, Ken, I can't agree with that.
Herman,
Thanks for not agreing with Ken and mentioning your angle platform. It reminded Me that I saw it some time ago and forgot about. It seems to be simple to adjust and easy to use with different knife widths, keeping the preset angle constant. I will build one when back home from the holy Tormek land. Thanks Herman for the idea.
WolfY,
Agreeing with me is certainly not a prerequisite for posting. :)
I am pleased that my unintentional oversight got you thinking about Herman's plarform jig. I remember the original posts. The topic started with a member wanting to sharpen very small knives. The recommended Tormek method at the time was freehand sharpening. (It is still shown in the handbook.) The problem with the Tormek platform jig is that it is too wide. It can be set for one bevel of a knife blade, but must be moved and reset to sharpen the second bevel.
The small platform jigs solved this problem by being made only to the width of the grinding wheel, 50mm. This allowed the full bevel to be ground on both sides of the blade without moving the platform. There were several early designs. Herman's idea worked the best because he used the scissors jig platform which has a lower center of gravity than the Tormek platform jig. (I know this from personal experience; my jigs are based on the higher Tormek platform which does not work as well.
The Tormek platform works fine with larger tools. I understand why any company would prefer to have thirteen jigs which cover most tools instead of twenty seven jigs for "compleat" coverage. Most customers seem to prefer simplicity.
I do not believe that the last chapter has been written about Herman's platform jig. I see a lot more potential in it, especially with interchangeable platforms. Herman has already taken his jig from small blades to machetes. Who knows what will be next.
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on June 25, 2016, 10:19:19 PM
Herman has already taken his jig from small blades to machetes. Who knows what will be next.
It's dandy for cleavers, too. I know that cleavers can be an issue with the Tormek knife jig if they are too wide. I believe Robin W invented a universal support with taller legs so that he could use the Tormek knife jig to sharpen his cleavers.
Quote from: Herman Trivilino on June 23, 2016, 05:26:26 PM
It's really the same jig as the SVD-110 Tool Rest, but with the platform much closer to the Universal Support.
Herman, why didn' t you use the SVD110? It seems to be easy to just cut cut it down from both sides to the widths of the stone 50mm and use it direct.
WolfY,
My homemade platform jigs (for both T4 and T7) are built on the SVD-110 platform. They work less well than Herman's design based on the scissors jig plarform, which has a lower center of gravity.
When we get beyond all the quite correct physics, I would guess Herman's choice may have been based on his already having the scissors jig and not the SVD-110, a happy combination of good theory and budget. :)
Ken
I thought the coating was the reason. Thanks.
Quote from: WolfY on June 26, 2016, 07:10:00 AM
Herman, why didn' t you use the SVD110? It seems to be easy to just cut cut it down from both sides to the widths of the stone 50mm and use it direct.
Its platform is too far away from the Universal Support rod. One is unable to grind at typical bevel angles for knives unless the knife is so wide as to actually be a cleaver.
These drawings show the dimension
d, which is the distance from the platform to the Universal Support rod.
For the scissors jig:
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b553/htrivilino/Scissors_zps8b94f547.png) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/htrivilino/media/Scissors_zps8b94f547.png.html)
And this for the SVD-110:
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b553/htrivilino/ToolRest_zps4acafcb9.png) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/htrivilino/media/ToolRest_zps4acafcb9.png.html)
Herman,
I placed my platform jig and scissors jig side by side through a universal support bar today. The platform jig stands about 22mm or 7/8" higher than the scissors jig. That is a substantial difference.
Ken
Thanks for the visual explanation too.
Quote from: Ken S on June 28, 2016, 03:40:01 AM
Herman,
I placed my platform jig and scissors jig side by side through a universal support bar today. The platform jig stands about 22mm or 7/8" higher than the scissors jig. That is a substantial difference.
Ken
When I did this a couple years ago I measured a difference of 24 mm.
http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=1592.msg10009#msg10009
Herman,
Everything is bigger in Texas. :)
Ken
I made a quick measurement. You are probably correct.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to test the T-2. For those who looked at it and the permanent jig that is part of the system, would recognize the same platform idea that Herman use.
The only difference compared to water stone system is the consistency of the stone diameter. That is not a big problem as it changes very slowly.
Pros. Cons. And thought another time and thread.
But... I'm still for the wet stone system ;)
WolfY,
I will be interested to learn more about the T2. I realize it is a very specialized machine, but I am curious.
What are your observations about the honing wheel on the T2?
Ken
Ken, are you sure we want to continue it on this thread?
I rather open new one for the T-2. When back home.
Good thought, WolfY. That would be less co fusing.
Ken
Quote from: Jan on June 15, 2016, 08:05:27 PM
Quote from: Ken S on June 15, 2016, 06:29:45 PM
Jan,
I realized the point was for automatic diameter correction. I assume the point will be equidistant between the wheels.?
Ken
Yes Ken, you are correct. The position of the pivot point (shown as red dot) is better visible in the 2D drawing below:
(http://img8.rajce.idnes.cz/d0803/12/12121/12121060_5e249ca78c74a6b5d45884e299c5c95d/images/FIG_1_700_DPI.jpg?ver=0)
Because this pivot point is beyond the setter base, the solution is not easy. E.g.: the rotary arm of the WolfY's setter may be guided by two concentric rings with the centre in the pivot point.
I am really afraid that this is too complicated for the majority of forum members.
Jan
Resurrecting a very old post/thread. I've been struggling lately with some well discussed issues of setting the USB height and wanting a quick way to set some standard angles. I use a couple versions of angle setting software, but I'm going to be doing some "Farmers Market" sharpening soon (two weeks) and would really like some quick ways of setting the angles. In thrashing about, I came across this old thread, by way of checking out the jigs on Rich Colvin's site and hunting down posts related to the Hanjig referenced there. I found Tournevis' post that had a CAD DXF format file attached, but could not open it (errors reported and the open failed). So I kept cruising through the thread and found Jan's drawing. Off I go...
I've believe I have faithfully recreated Jan's drawing of the jig in my CAD program, but for clarity, I have omitted the dimensions.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2487)
I drew in the grind stones at 250mm and 200mm and drew the respective tangent lines at the centerpoint between the two metal contact discs. I determined that the difference between the tangent lines "position" was only 0.32mm separation, which I regard as insignificant to the angles and so have disregarded the difference in wheel diameters over the functional range for a T7/8 machine.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2489)
I then drew in angle lines for 10, 15 and 20º from the tangent point mid-way between the two contact discs
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2491)
I am extremely curious about why my drawing angles came out so different from Jan's, and trusting Jan's skills and knowledge, I question my work rather than his. Is my assumption about using the tangent from the centerpoint between the two contacts discs in error? That would depend on the projection used on the jig.
Edit: Drew circles, one with a radius of 139mm and another through the center points of Jan's USB holes. The latter measured 133.52mm.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2493)
Checking my work, after the fact. Looks okay to me.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2495)
I would like to hear (read) your thoughts.
Rick
I just skimmed thru this thread... but from what I can tell in this post (https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=2639.msg14364#msg14364), the location of the holes isn't determined by the tangent point you referenced... (Jan will have to explain how he determined the hole location).... so, yeah, I think your assumption is wrong. (or maybe I am).
Maybe I missed it, but this approach never seemed to get out of the testing phase? (Hint)? ???
I guess I'm not seeing the benefit of this approach... (doesn't mean there isn't one). I think a Sharpie would be the quickest route. Sharpening at a specific angle has the disadvantage in that it takes longer if it doesn't match (at least closely) what the knife is at already. Anglemaster (or calculator) if you want to check what you're sharpening at.
I guess part of this depends on your goal... but if there's a time constraint... my .02 is... just sharpening a knife at the current angle it's at, 99.9% of the time will come out very sharp, and more than meet the needs/satisfaction of the user.
Quote from: WolfY on June 21, 2016, 03:11:13 PM
and another (knife centering) with the standard knife jigs is sort of solved. I'm waiting for a friend to help me with the real prototype. Don't tell anyone ;)
WolfY
Self centering jig? (
2016... You're killing me here)... ::)
Rick, your interest pleases me. You are almost correct in your considerations. :)
I have considered 250 mm and 160 mm stones and have found shift of the tangent line 1.4 mm and 2.1 mm respectively.
For a projection length 139 mm the centres of the USB for bevel angles 10, 15 and 20⁰ lie on a circle with radius 133.54 mm.
Your drawing angles differ from my USB positions for bevel angles 10, 15 and 20⁰ by some 5.2⁰, which is an angle given by the geometry of the knife jig and the USB (atan(12 mm/ (139-6) mm) = 5.16⁰).
CB, I guess in my country they are one or two dozens of Tormekers using this setting tool. Some people printed it on a 3D printer. My is metallic. ;)
Jan
Quote from: Jan on August 24, 2018, 01:45:52 PM
CB, I guess in my country they are one or two dozens of Tormekers using this setting tool. Some people simply printed it on a 3D printer. My is metallic. ;)
Jan
Thanks for the pictures.
I guess I'm swayed by the fact I've never seen it anywhere outside of this thread.
(I do like the 2nd picture, with the setup to set the Projection Distance)...
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2499)
Still, not really seeing any time savings with this method though (which was Rick's stated goal). I could calculate and pre-mark the USB height for the 3 angles (based on the current wheel size)... and that should get me thru a day of sharpening at a Farmer's Market. (I could see the advantage if there wasn't any way to know what the USB height should be).
(Just to be clear, I'm not downplaying the device itself, or the skill required to make it... from that aspect, I think it's pretty cool.) 8)
Edit to add: From a "time savings" aspect, one thing I've noticed with SteveB's method... is he uses an alternative for deburring and finishing the edge. For example from his website (https://sharpeningmadeeasy.com/farmers.htm) he uses an "F.Dick RS-150" to finish the edge. And from his "Boy Scout Jamboree (https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=3328)" thread, he used a Sharpmaker to knock off the burr. (Might be worth looking into).
CB,
Rick Krug sent me an eMail and asked me about my experiences with the HanJig. What I have found is :
- When sharpening a few knives, especially if I swap out the grindstones, the HanJig is the "bees knees" ! This is a very quick setup that really resembles the TTS-100 in its approach. That is something I use when wood turning, and it gets me back to work fast.
- When sharpening a load of knives (like everything in the kitchen), then the platform method is faster overall.
Kind regards,
Rich
Rich has shown me his hanjig. It is clever and formidable. My grandson is helping me print one of the 3D jigs from the Czech Republic. They are also formidable!
I would suggest that some of us are not using these jigs in the most efficient manner. Using the example of a farmers market sharpener, there are two variables in setting a knife in a jug: 1) the Distance from the support bar to the grinding wheel and 2) the Projection of the edge in the jig from the support bar.
If these two remain constant, the sharpener may sharpen knives with the same bevel angle (I use 15°) all morning and not need to reset anything.If someone is using a kenjig or other setting jig for every knife, it is for the enjoyment of doing it, not the necessity. Used properly, the setting jig should make sharpening with the Tormek knife jigs almost as quick as freehanding with one of Herman's small platforms. Used skillfully, the Herman platform seems like it might approach the accuracy of the Tormek knife jig.
I think both are useful, perhaps under slightly different circumstances. I use both.
Ken
Quote from: Jan on August 24, 2018, 01:45:52 PM
Rick, your interest pleases me. You are almost correct in your considerations. :)
I have considered 250 mm and 160 mm stones and have found shift of the tangent line 1.4 mm and 2.1 mm respectively.
For a projection length 139 mm the centres of the USB for bevel angles 10, 15 and 20⁰ lie on a circle with radius 133.54 mm.
Your drawing angles differ from my USB positions for bevel angles 10, 15 and 20⁰ by some 5.2⁰, which is an angle given by the geometry of the knife jig and the USB (atan(12 mm/ (139-6) mm) = 5.16⁰).
CB, I guess in my country they are one or two dozens of Tormekers using this setting tool. Some people printed it on a 3D printer. My is metallic. ;)
Jan
Duh!... Yes, I totally forgot about the knife jig on the USB. I'll work on updating my drawing. I am converting it to inch dimensions, as that is what I'm used to, so ultimately, my numbers will differ from yours. I'm also going to use 5/8" OD bearings.
I've done all my work in CAD without any math. I do not understand what you are saying about the "shift of the tangent line 1.4 mm and 2.1 mm respectively". I can understand that things change with different (smaller) diameter wheels, but I'm not getting enough of it regarding the "shift".
I have a drawing of the SVM-45 knife jig from another drawing, which I'll port over to this drawing and use it for setting up the angles, etc..
Thanks,
Rick
Rick, what I understand under the term "shift of the tangent line" you can see in the drawing attached to my reply no. 30 in his topic. https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=2639.30
The drawing shows the situation for 200 mm stone where the shift is 1.9 mm.
Jan
Jan,
Thanks. That helps me understand what that offset is. I got the same number, 1.9mm for the 200mm dia. stone from my CAD drawing. I got 1.54mm shift for the 250mm stone.
What I still don't get is what the relevance or importance is of that offset.
I've been using the tangent point, on the OD of the 250mm stone, that is coincident with the center point of the tangent line between the two metal contact discs. I've been using that 250mm OD tangent point as the point of contact of the apex of the blade being sharpened. I've been drawing angles out to the projection distance from that reference point and using the 250mm tangent line as the baseline for the angles.
CB mentioned he thought that tangent point is not the point that you were using. Could you clarify, please?
BTW, I have been able to confirm a couple other numbers you provided. The radius of the angle setter holes for the USB is 133.54mm and the offset of the angle is 5.16º (I got 5.156º but rounding makes it 5.16º)
On another issue, I believe closely related, the tangent of the stone is not the angle that a blade gets ground at if the apex is at the tangent point. The surface of the stone falls away (downward in our drawings) from the tangent line. The resultant angle of the ground bevel is greater than the tangent line. That ground angle gets greater the wider the sharpened blade is. I have been struggling to figure out how that figures into these angles. It has seemed that the differences in angles is not insignificant.
Rick
Quote from: RickKrung on August 25, 2018, 09:46:15 AM
...snip...
On another issue, I believe closely related, the tangent of the stone is not the angle that a blade gets ground at if the apex is at the tangent point. The surface of the stone falls away (downward in our drawings) from the tangent line. The resultant angle of the ground bevel is greater than the tangent line. That ground angle gets greater the wider the sharpened blade is. I have been struggling to figure out how that figures into these angles. It has seemed that the differences in angles is not insignificant.
Rick
Here is what I'm referring to. First a large view of the Hanjig (as confirmed consistent with Jan's drawing), with the Knife Jig and blade, projection distance 139mm, set on the 10º USB hole position.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2505)
Close up of the angles at the knife bevel. 10.3º is the angle from the top of the blade (centerline of the knife jig) and the 250mm stone tangent line. 11.7º is the angle from the top of the blade to the actual bevel angle ground by the stone.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2507)
There is a difference of 1.4º, which is a significant difference from the "intended" angle, nominally 10º in this example. Should not this difference in actual ground angle be corrected for in the design of the jig? Or maybe I'm missing something else about all this.
Rick
Rick, I use the same reference point as you. It is the contact point between the apex of the blade and the stone.
The tangent to the stone at this reference point is parallel with a line defined by the two metallic discs contacting the stone surface. Both lines are slightly offset. I admit that your offset estimation is more accurate than mine. I have made small error by measuring the diameter of the contact discs.
The later line defined by the metallic discs was for me the base line for the construction of the setting jig.
The bevel angle is exact only for the apex of the blade provided it is mounted symmetrically with respect to centre line of the knife jig.
Jan
Thanks for the replies... so maybe it is being used. ;) (But at a Farmer's Market?)... ???
Quote from: RickKrung on August 25, 2018, 09:46:15 AM
...
CB mentioned he thought that tangent point is not the point that you were using. Could you clarify, please?
...
Pay no attention to me... I was going by your drawing vs. Jan's earlier drawing. Quite frankly, I don't think I'm understanding the differences.
Good luck... if you get it to work out, I'd love to see it in action. 👍
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 25, 2018, 03:39:59 PM
Thanks for the replies... so maybe it is being used. ;) (But at a Farmer's Market?)... ???
Quote from: RickKrung on August 25, 2018, 09:46:15 AM
...
CB mentioned he thought that tangent point is not the point that you were using. Could you clarify, please?
...
Pay no attention to me... I was going by your drawing vs. Jan's earlier drawing. Quite frankly, I don't think I'm understanding the differences.
Good luck... if you get it to work out, I'd love to see it in action. 👍
Please, let me try to expound on my newly acquired understanding ;D
There are two tangent lines. The offset is the distance between them. One tangent is of the grinding stone, the other is between the two metal contact discs on the jig. The former is different for each diameter of grinding stone.
Two tangent lines.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2511)
Measured distance between the tangent lines is the offset under discussion.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2513)
Rick
Quote from: Jan on August 25, 2018, 01:19:12 PM
Rick, I use the same reference point as you. It is the contact point between the apex of the blade and the stone.
The tangent to the stone at this reference point is parallel with a line defined by the two metallic discs contacting the stone surface. Both lines are slightly offset. I admit that your offset estimation is more accurate than mine. I have made small error by measuring the diameter of the contact discs.
The later line defined by the metallic discs was for me the base line for the construction of the setting jig.
The bevel angle is exact only for the apex of the blade provided it is mounted symmetrically with respect to centre line of the knife jig.
Jan
Thanks, Jan. I did not see your diagram until this morning after I drew what will appear below. I believe we are in agreement, except I used the 10º USB setting. Things are much clearer for me now. I noticed in your diagram, you depict a bevel above the apex but not below.
In my example, I show the actual angle ground on the bevel in comparison to the angle between the wheel tangent and the jig centerline.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2517)
I wonder if you or any others who have used this jig have measured the resultant bevel angles. Is there a difference anything like what I have depicted above? If so, perhaps a difference of a little over one degree is not significant in practical applications, but it is of interest to me and I may adjust for it when I make a jig for myself.
Rick
Quote from: RickKrung on August 25, 2018, 05:25:51 PM
Please, let me try to expound on my newly acquired understanding ;D
There are two tangent lines. The offset is the distance between them. One tangent is of the grinding stone, the other is between the two metal contact discs on the jig. The former is different for each diameter of grinding stone.
Two tangent lines.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2511)
Measured distance between the tangent lines is the offset under discussion.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2513)
Rick
Yes Rick, your newly acquired understanding is correct. :)
Sorry for my inability to explain it in a more simple and compact way.
Jan
Quote from: RickKrung on August 25, 2018, 05:34:25 PM
Thanks, Jan. I did not see your diagram until this morning after I drew what will appear below. I believe we are in agreement, except I used the 10º USB setting. Things are much clearer for me now. I noticed in your diagram, you depict a bevel above the apex but not below.
In my example, I show the actual angle ground on the bevel in comparison to the angle between the wheel tangent and the jig centerline.
I wonder if you or any others who have used this jig have measured the resultant bevel angles. Is there a difference anything like what I have depicted above? If so, perhaps a difference of a little over one degree is not significant in practical applications, but it is of interest to me and I may adjust for it when I make a jig for myself.
Rick
Rick, the intended bevel angle is exactly equal to 10, 15 or 20⁰, but only at the very apex of the edge and slightly increases towards the heel of the ground.
My understanding of your wondering about the actually ground angle is that you consider chord angle and not tangent angle at the apex. ;)
Some time ago I have explained the chord vs tangent situation when sharpening a chisel. See the attached figure, please.
Jan
Quote from: Jan on August 25, 2018, 08:28:16 PM
Rick, the intended bevel angle is exactly equal to 10, 15 or 20⁰, but only at the very apex of the edge and slightly increases towards the heel of the ground.
My understanding of your wondering about the actually ground angle is that you consider chord angle and not tangent angle at the apex. ;)
Some time ago I have explained the chord vs tangent situation when sharpening a chisel. See the attached figure, please.
Jan
Jan,
Thanks. Yes, I was vaguely remembering that someone had described that difference but could not recall who (although I suspected it was you) or in what thread. I do not recall the conclusions or take aways from it however.
Can we make this variation go away once we start using the side of the new diamond wheels to flat grind? Or will the slight hollow effect of the leather honing wheel, although much reduced, still present a problem?
I would suggest that consistency is at least as important as the exact angle reading. If we sharpen ten identical knives in an identical manner, will we not get ten identical angles? If our readings are consistent, but not exact, we can compensate. We can tweak the 139mm Projection very slightly to compensate, if the variance is not within tolerance, providing the variance is consistent. Or, if we prefer, we could accomplish the same goal by tweaking the Distance.
For my simple requirements, I am not concerned if my supposedly 15° bevels are acrually 14° or 16°. While more precise angles may be required for some very high end work, I believe the average farmers market customer will be delighted with a sharp knife with reasonably accurate bevel angles.
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on August 25, 2018, 11:21:16 PM
...
For my simple requirements, I am not concerned if my supposedly 15° bevels are acrually 14° or 16°. ...
Yes Ken, I completely agree with you. In this thread, however, it is about the fun of mathematics 8)
Quote... While more precise angles may be required for some very high end work, ...
I doubt that. I do not know an application in which the accuracy of the sharpening angle would be so crucial.
Rick, you are welcome! :)
Ken, you are correct, the new diamond wheels with constant diameters reduce the need for such a special setting jigs like the one discussed here. At T8 or T7 machines it can be used for setting the USB height for honing. In combination with the mounting set BGM-100 it can be used for setting the angles for grinding at bench grinders.
In my understanding, the diamond wheels with constant diameters may revive the use of your kenjig. My double ended kenjig will enable to sharpen and hone majority of kitchen knives for a desired bevel angle.
I think, I will not surprise you, when I tell you that I am already inventing a tool for smoothly setting of arbitrary bevel angle on machines with diamond wheels. It will be simple and suitable for 3D printing! ;)
Jan
Dutchman,
You are quite correct; this topic is really about the fun of mathematics. I would add the value of mathematics in a most positive way. While my mathematics is limited, I appreciate that errors are cumulative and appreciate how mathematics can lower our degree of errors. We have not stated it, however, using mathematics and precision drawings has allowed us to move far beyond the limitations of the Anglemaster. I do not mean to be critical of the Anglemaster. It is accurate enough for its intended purpose, however, it is limited by its thick lines. Even a much more expensive tool like a Starrett protractor with engine cut lines has limitations. The more we can incorporate mathematics into our set up tools, the more we can raise the standards of both our critical work and the general work. Your calculations, begun with a handheld calculator, have certainly sparked a whole area of development in angle setting.
Jan,
I look forward to all of your ideas, especially those related to 3D printing. I believe in the value of being a novice, like me, in mew areas to sharpen the mind.
The new diamond wheels have many advantages. However, we have much to learn about sharpening with them. The sharper cutting grains of diamonds may not always be advantageous. We have often used slurry to help sharpen. The possibility of controlled flat grinding with the side of the wheel will present many new possibilities. The old flat vs hollow grinding debate will take on new dimensions. I believe most of this discussion will be generated on the forum; Tormek has not said much oabout any new wheels, including the SB and SJ.
I look forward to interesting discussions.
Kn
Thanks to all who contributed.
I didn't do any math, just precision drawings, but it was fun gaining a better understanding. I will make one of these, using the tangent, to find out whether it serves my purpose. I've collected the bearings, fasteners and need to dig out some aluminum plate. I will build it using inch dimensions and have redrawn it based on 5/8" bearings, etc.
I do have a fabrication question, regarding the overlap in the USB holes. It appears nice to have that as it allows more angles to be included, but I have a machining question. What drill/reamer/counterbore was used? My question concerns the flutes catching the sharp corners of the adjacent holes, pulling the tool off-center or just ruining the cut. I have a 12mm reamer (with a long shank) which would make nice precision holes, but I if fear will do just, grab the corners. If it had a pilot, it could not wander. I have some piloted metric counterbores but they typically are oversized, which I do not want. I have a boring head, which would work, but takes a bit more work to use. I could make these where the holes do not overlap, but that means making three for all the angles that I want, which would be nice to avoid by having overlapped holes.
I have not tried using the reamer yet, so do not know if my fears are real. What have any of you who have made this (machined) used?
Thanks,
Rick
Rick, I have not manufactured my metallic jig myself, I have received it as prototype for testing. :)
My Al jigs were cut with abrasive waterjet using high pressure water and garnet and aluminum oxide as abrasive.
As far as I know the holes for the USB were not reamed. It may be good to experiment with the hole diameter to avoid excessive play on the USbar.
In my thinking the 5/8"bearings will work fine. The difference to 16 mm is negligible.
A larger uncertainty is in selecting the appropriate offset. This offset will make your jig to work slightly more exact for larger or smaller wheels.
Jan
Quote from: Jan on August 26, 2018, 06:44:40 PM
...snip...
It may be good to experiment with the hole diameter to avoid excessive play on the USbar.
A larger uncertainty is in selecting the appropriate offset. This offset will make your jig to work slightly more exact for larger or smaller wheels.
Jan
Do you have a recommendation on the appropriate offset?
I was planning on using the offset for a 250mm wheel. I have one of the three diamond wheels now, the other two are on backorder. I also have an SJ wheel that is still very close to 250mm (248mm). The smaller of the two, SG and SB wheels is 245mm but I do not expect to use them much in the future. Given the nature of use of the SJ wheel, I do not expect it to wear down fast.
Since 250mm is at the upper extreme, I can see where using an offset for something slightly less could be appropriate but "close enough" and maintain the consistency for the unchanging diamond wheels.
Edit: I do wonder which way the error will go, say, using a jig for 250mm wheels on a decreasing diameter (SJ) stone. Will it increase or decrease the angle? Visually thinking about it, I think it will increase the angle.
Also, I do plan on experimenting with the reamer, trying it on some scrap alum. to see whether and how much it grabs overlaping holes and what that may do to the resultant hole. At the very least, I can make the jigs without the holes overlapping, but it means making at least three jigs. (12, 18, 24º; 10, 16, 22º; 15, 22.5º)
Rick
Rick,
You arrived late to the party. The two small wheels are borrowed directly from the TTS-100. Their purpose is to automatically self compensate for differences in wheel diameter. This was discussed on the forum several years ago. Note that the same TTS-100 works for either the T4 or the T7/8. The advantage of the more sophisticated jigs over the original kenjig is that they do not require lengthening the Distance slot as the wheel wears.
Jan made an interesting observation about the two wheels. When both wheels cannot make contact with the grinding wheel, it is time for a new grinding wheel.
I think the TTS-100 is Tormek's most useful set up tool by a wide margin. When combined with the 186 gouge jig, in my opinion, we have Tormek's most advanced combination. I have used the TTS-100 to set up my chisels and planes from almost when I first began using my Tormek. I like the improved speed and consistency.
I have never understood why Tormek has not used its patented auto correct wheen on the TTS-100 with other tool set ups.
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on August 27, 2018, 01:43:55 AM
Rick,
You arrived late to the party. The two small wheels are borrowed directly from the TTS-100. Their purpose is to automatically self compensate for differences in wheel diameter. This was discussed on the forum several years ago. Note that the same TTS-100 works for either the T4 or the T7/8. The advantage of the more sophisticated jigs over the original kenjig is that they do not require lengthening the Distance slot as the wheel wears.
...snip...
Ken
No doubt I did arrive too late on that. I have no problem accepting and using the two small discs as intended. Perhaps I did not understand Jan's question about the appropriated offset and attempted to answer it "inappropriately".
No matter. I'm moving forward with my version of the jig and will report back when I have something more.
Rick
Rick,
I will look forward to seeing your new jig!
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on August 27, 2018, 04:19:09 AM
Rick,
I will look forward to seeing your new jig!
Ken
Be careful what you wish for ;)
Quote from: Ken S on August 27, 2018, 01:43:55 AM
...
You arrived late to the party. The two small wheels are borrowed directly from the TTS-100. Their purpose is to automatically self compensate for differences in wheel diameter. This was discussed on the forum several years ago. Note that the same TTS-100 works for either the T4 or the T7/8. The advantage of the more sophisticated jigs over the original kenjig is that they do not require lengthening the Distance slot as the wheel wears.
...
I'm not sure technically this is correct... that it "self compensates for differences in wheel diameter". If I understand this quote from Jan...
Quote from: Jan on August 24, 2018, 01:45:52 PM
...
I have considered 250 mm and 160 mm stones and have found shift of the tangent line 1.4 mm and 2.1 mm respectively.
...
... there is a difference, but it's so small (.7mm), it doesn't matter? For comparison, (probably not a direct correlation), a 1mm difference in wheel diameter, or a 1mm difference in USB height is less than 1 degree difference (at the extreme... much less in smaller changes).
I guess the question would be what difference in USB position there would be if you used the jig that was made for 250mm wheel on a 160mm wheel... if it's a direct correlation of .7mm... or slightly more or less?
At any rate, shouldn't matter much... I guess you could split the "offset" difference, and it would be even less of an issue?... but practically, doubt you could tell the difference. (If I understand this part...) ::)
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 27, 2018, 04:28:37 PM
.snip...
I guess the question would be what difference in USB position there would be if you used the jig that was made for 250mm wheel on a 160mm wheel... if it's a direct correlation of .7mm... or slightly more or less?
At any rate, shouldn't matter much... I guess you could split the "offset" difference, and it would be even less of an issue?... but practically, doubt you could tell the difference. (If I understand this part...) ::)
Quote from: RickKrung on August 26, 2018, 07:31:14 PM
...snip...
I was planning on using the offset for a 250mm wheel. I have one of the three diamond wheels now, the other two are on backorder. I also have an SJ wheel that is still very close to 250mm (248mm). The smaller of the two, SG and SB wheels is 245mm but I do not expect to use them much in the future. Given the nature of use of the SJ wheel, I do not expect it to wear down fast.
Since 250mm is at the upper extreme, I can see where using an offset for something slightly less could be appropriate but "close enough" and maintain the consistency for the unchanging diamond wheels.
...snip...
Rick
It may matter for some.
For my anticipated use, I think it is immaterial. Given that I expect to be using the diamond wheels for grinding and the SJ wheel for deburring/polishing, I do not expect to get into the realm of a small diameter SJ wheel very soon and I think I would replace it by the time it gets to 200mm.
I have moved on, to making a couple test bed jigs to determine if they even work for my purpose. If so, I'll make a more complicated multi-angle jig(s).
Rick
Quote from: RickKrung on August 27, 2018, 05:11:49 PM
...snip...
I have moved on, to making a couple test bed jigs to determine if they even work for my purpose. If so, I'll make a more complicated multi-angle jig(s).
Rick
I completed two test beds for the HanJig, 16º and 18º. I mounted 5/8" precision bearings on shoulder bolts for the contact discs and painted "spokes" on the exterior race so rotation could be easily seen. Works pretty good (watch the videos).
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2521)
Here are three videos showing adjustment of the jigs, starting with the USB set at one increment (number on the USB nut, 0.21mm/0.008") lower than centered. That video shows the right or upper bearing turning only.
https://vimeo.com/286976178 (https://vimeo.com/286976178)
The second video shows the USB set at one increment above center, showing the left or lower bearing turning only.
https://vimeo.com/286976129 (https://vimeo.com/286976129)
The third video shows the USB centered so that both bearings are turning.
https://vimeo.com/286976155 (https://vimeo.com/286976155)
Finally, a blade ground with the DF250 diamond wheel (left side of frame) followed by honing on the leather wheel (right side of frame), both set with the HanJig. (My honing wheel measures 215mm).
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2523)
I cannot tell where the transition is, and all the black marker is gone from the entire bevel. I've not done much honing but I think I've noticed that the angle doesn't have to be that close for all the marker to be removed by the honing wheel. I honed both sides of the blade and check the sharpness: 180 BESS, average of three locations. That is better by 20-40 points that I had previously been able to achieve with the DF250 and honing wheel.
What I can tell you is that these results were achieved far faster and
with far less fiddling with the USB after setting the angle
than when using apps and my method of transferring the USB height to the USB/machine. That is, the HanJig as set above, with no further testing of how much black was removed, blacking and checking again, and again if necessary
, as has been necessary previously. All knife jig projections are 139mm.
When using an app, for transferring the USB height from the app to the USB, I use pattern maker's marking gauge, set from the extension rod on a precision digital caliper, which is set to 0.XXmm base on the app output. I am quite comfortable with this method and feel it is as accurate as I can get.
Further trials are needed, particularly with the SB stone and the SJ wheel, which is what I have been primarily using, and with the DF250 and SJ wheels, which is where I expect to be going. I am very encouraged by these preliminary results.
Rick
Rick,
Are you saying the HanJig is faster than calculating and measuring, or do I have your meaning backwards?
Rich
Quote from: RichColvin on August 28, 2018, 03:25:09 AM
Rick,
Are you saying the HanJig is faster than calculating and measuring, or do I have your meaning backwards?
Rich
Yes, I mean the HanJig is faster. Sorry, I reread my post above and see how it was confusing. I edited it,
using BOLD, but it still isn't as clear as it could be.
I have now run the same blade with the SB/SJ and DF/SJ using the HanJig. Same increase in speed and consistency. When changing from from one wheel to another and setting the angle with the HanJig, I have not had to make any further adjustments of the USB. Just put the knife/jig in place and go.
SB/SJ alone: average of 305 BESS. Followed by stopping using a SharpPAD: average 133 BESS
DF/SJ alone: average of 272 BESS. Followed by stopping using a SharpPAD: average 165 BESS
These are not as sharp as the scores I was used to getting with just the SB/SJ stone (90-130 BESS), but I was taking a lot longer with them. Maybe some of the fiddling was helping. The speed and ease of use of the HanJig is impressive and a pleasure, and it is producing results I would take to a Farmer's Market - as sharp or sharper than a utility razor blade.
The SB/SJ combination was easy. No change of water in the tray. I have not brought myself to use the ACC laced water required for the DF wheel with the SB or SJ wheel, due to a perception of contamination of the diamond stone. So, I poured out the SB/SJ water and put in DF/ACC to use the DF wheel and then re-exchanged when going to the SJ wheel. Not a procedure I want to use at a Farmer's Market. Makes me think I'd use the SB/SJ for routine blades and hold the DF in reserve. I'm sure I'll get over the hesitancy to use the ACC water with the SB/SJ stones, just not there yet.
One thing about my trials so far is that I've been re-using the same blade. That is not what will be more common - working different blades each time. More testing is still in order.
Rick
Quote from: RickKrung on August 28, 2018, 05:15:59 AM
...
SB/SJ alone: average of 305 BESS. Followed by stopping using a SharpPAD: average 133 BESS
DF/SJ alone: average of 272 BESS. Followed by stopping using a SharpPAD: average 165 BESS
...
Have you tried going from the SB or DF wheel straight to the SharpPad (skip the SJ), and see what score you get?
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 28, 2018, 06:12:42 AM
Have you tried going from the SB or DF wheel straight to the SharpPad (skip the SJ), and see what score you get?
Yes, 226 BESS for the brand new DF250, which may improve with use. I have not for the SB stone.
Rick
Quote from: RickKrung on August 28, 2018, 06:17:55 AM
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 28, 2018, 06:12:42 AM
Have you tried going from the SB or DF wheel straight to the SharpPad (skip the SJ), and see what score you get?
Yes, 226 BESS for the brand new DF250, which may improve with use. I have not for the SB stone.
Rick
Ah. Bummer (SharpPad didn't work as well as I hoped).
Quote from: RickKrung on August 28, 2018, 01:38:42 AM
...
Finally, a blade ground with the DF250 diamond wheel (left side of frame) followed by honing on the leather wheel (right side of frame), both set with the HanJig. (My honing wheel measures 215mm).
I cannot tell where the transition is, and all the black marker is gone from the entire bevel. I've not done much honing but I think I've noticed that the angle doesn't have to be that close for all the marker to be removed by the honing wheel. I honed both sides of the blade and check the sharpness: 180 BESS, average of three locations. That is better by 20-40 points that I had previously been able to achieve with the DF250 and honing wheel.
So... SharpPad after Leather Wheel (instead of SJ wheel) results? (180 is better than what you're getting with the SJ wheel...).
(I really think swapping wheels is going to quickly become an issue if you get busy, is my point here).
Another thing you might try, just to see how well your new jig is working, is, after setting the USB, occasionally check the measurement (the "old way"), and see if it's consistent.
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 28, 2018, 03:06:11 PM
Ah. Bummer (SharpPad didn't work as well as I hoped).
I wouldn't put much stock in that one. It was a brand new DF wheel, first time used. And, I would not expect as good a result, going directly to it from a grind stone. I love the SharpPAD, but I don't think it was designed for that big of a jump.
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 28, 2018, 03:06:11 PM
So... SharpPad after Leather Wheel (instead of SJ wheel) results? (180 is better than what you're getting with the SJ wheel...).
Possibly, if the SharpPAD were used after the Leather Wheel. I don't think it is fair to make that comparison now. These were single trials, no replication. The numbers are too close together to say with any certainty there is any real difference, whatever the finishing method. I think the main take-away is that this jig does a good, fast job of consistently setting the angle and would be very useful in a more production-like, particularly where wheel swapping is involved.
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 28, 2018, 03:06:11 PM
(I really think swapping wheels is going to quickly become an issue if you get busy, is my point here).
I agree, but I am hoping that will not be my problem the first or second time out. No one currently knows the service will be available and the market is quite small.
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 28, 2018, 03:06:11 PM
Another thing you might try, just to see how well your new jig is working, is, after setting the USB, occasionally check the measurement (the "old way"), and see if it's consistent.
Yes, I am interested in checking that out. A whole number on the USB is actually a lot of adjustment range. I did like that the HanJig was quick to get centered, and that centered point is what should be compared to other methods of setting the USB height. There will still remain the time required to complete a four-step process (app/caliper/marking gauge/USB setting) vs. the single step with the HanJig. An improved accuracy of the former would have to be a very convincing need vs the speed of a "very good enough" single step. We'll see.
Rick,
The HanJig reminds me of the fast approach to drilling thru the centerline of a rod. To get the drill thru the rod's centre, you have to find the exact center, side-to-side. Easy enough with an edge finder and a digital readout.
But, I can get pretty darn close on the drill press by using a 6" metal ruler and a point in the chuck. When the ruler seems parallel, I'm usually good enough. Here's a video of what I'm saying. The technique starts around 1:30 into the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3WWoQDGO2c
Both this and the HanJig are what I also consider "very good enough".
(My high school shop teacher is probably rolling over in his grave ...)
Kind regards,
Rich
Quote from: RichColvin on August 28, 2018, 07:12:05 PM
Rick,
The HanJig reminds me of the fast approach to drilling thru the centerline of a rod. To get the drill thru the rod's centre, you have to find the exact center, side-to-side. Easy enough with an edge finder and a digital readout.
But, I can get pretty darn close on the drill press by using a 6" metal ruler and a point in the chuck. When the ruler seems parallel, I'm usually good enough. Here's a video of what I'm saying. The technique starts around 1:30 into the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3WWoQDGO2c
Both this and the HanJig are what I also consider "very good enough".
(My high school shop teacher is probably rolling over in his grave ...)
Kind regards,
Rich
Good analogy, Rich.
Balancing a ruler using a sharp point is a classic, "old school" quick-n-dirty trick that really works well. I'm glad he discussed the type of ruler to use.
When drilling, using that method, almost any regular drill is still going to walk, especially off of a radius. Best to start the hole with a centerdrill to get the spot hole wider than the flutes on the drill. If that is not possible, use a small pilot hole to help keep larger drills on center.
I've used that method for finding centerline for lathe turning tool bits more often than drilling holes in rods and it works just as well.
Rick
Congratulations fellows! You have tied the longest thread containing 166 replies. That one was on 1/4" chisels. This reply carries it over that record.
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 28, 2018, 03:06:11 PM
...snip...
So... SharpPad after Leather Wheel (instead of SJ wheel) results? (180 is better than what you're getting with the SJ wheel...).
(I really think swapping wheels is going to quickly become an issue if you get busy, is my point here).
CB, you're going to like this.
So, my daughter convinced me to start at the Farmer's Market tomorrow! :o I don't know what I was thinking. I had not yet figured out what wheels and deburring/polishing process works for this type of sharpening.
But, I was in the middle of making those jigs, so I finished two more 14º and 12º for a set of four. I think that should cover it for routine blades at a FM. Anything else, I'll use CB's app.
(https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2639.0;attach=2529)
Switching to getting set up with a table and figure out where things should go and what the work flow should be, I sat down to try it out. I decided to try using only the SB stone, Leather Wheel and the SharpPAD, just to see if that would work and avoid the stone/wheel changes.
SHAAZAAMM! I knocked out three knives, two that I carry (Leatherman Wave and a Kershaw) and a cheapo from a thrift store (Good Cook). Using the 16º jig, I set up the SB and LW. I did the Wave first followed by the Good Cood. Then switched to the 18º jig, set the angles and did the Kershaw. I blackened the bevels first and checked how well the angles matched before doing any grinding. Two were off a bit, but I ran them as is. Everything went very smoothly and quickly. I only got out of my seat to shift over to use the SharpPAD and the BESS tester.
I measured sharpness after the SB/LW and again after the SharpPAD (SP) at three locations, near the base, in the middle and near the tip and averaged them.
Leatherman: SB/LW: 150 SP: 120
Good Cook: SB/LW: 264 SP: 190
Kershaw: SB/LW: 182 SP: 147
I'm really excited. These are highly suitable results, especially for the simplicity of the setup/process. They push cut copy paper like a whiz with only very minor hitches. I am actually looking forward to tomorrow now. I'm going to go finish getting organized and packed.
I have to say, I think these jigs are the Queen Bees Knees!
Rick
Rick,
Best of luck at the farmers market today! We will be with you in spirit.
There is an old saying that chance favors the prepared mind. You have certainly prepared. I like the combination of simplicity and precision that you have put into your jigs. I also think that your sharpening routine has evolved to a very practical level, allowing you to perform a very good job of sharpening in a time efficient manner.
Good work!
Ken
Quote from: RickKrung on August 29, 2018, 04:25:49 AM
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 28, 2018, 03:06:11 PM
...snip...
So... SharpPad after Leather Wheel (instead of SJ wheel) results? (180 is better than what you're getting with the SJ wheel...).
(I really think swapping wheels is going to quickly become an issue if you get busy, is my point here).
CB, you're going to like this.
So, my daughter convinced me to start at the Farmer's Market tomorrow! :o I don't know what I was thinking. I had not yet figured out what wheels and deburring/polishing process works for this type of sharpening.
But, I was in the middle of making those jigs, so I finished two more 14º and 12º for a set of four. I think that should cover it for routine blades at a FM. Anything else, I'll use CB's app.
Switching to getting set up with a table and figure out where things should go and what the work flow should be, I sat down to try it out. I decided to try using only the SB stone, Leather Wheel and the SharpPAD, just to see if that would work and avoid the stone/wheel changes.
SHAAZAAMM! I knocked out three knives, two that I carry (Leatherman Wave and a Kershaw) and a cheapo from a thrift store (Good Cook). Using the 16º jig, I set up the SB and LW. I did the Wave first followed by the Good Cood. Then switched to the 18º jig, set the angles and did the Kershaw. I blackened the bevels first and checked how well the angles matched before doing any grinding. Two were off a bit, but I ran them as is. Everything went very smoothly and quickly. I only got out of my seat to shift over to use the SharpPAD and the BESS tester.
I measured sharpness after the SB/LW and again after the SharpPAD (SP) at three locations, near the base, in the middle and near the tip and averaged them.
Leatherman: SB/LW: 150 SP: 120
Good Cook: SB/LW: 264 SP: 190
Kershaw: SB/LW: 182 SP: 147
I'm really excited. These are highly suitable results, especially for the simplicity of the setup/process. They push cut copy paper like a whiz with only very minor hitches. I am actually looking forward to tomorrow now. I'm going to go finish getting organized and packed.
I have to say, I think these jigs are the Queen Bees Knees!
Rick
Cool. 8) Congrats... and good luck... although I don't think you'll need it, you'll do great. 👍 👍
Quote from: Elden on August 28, 2018, 10:27:42 PM
Congratulations fellows! You have tied the longest thread containing 166 replies. That one was on 1/4" chisels. This reply carries it over that record.
That's pretty funny. ;D
(All I can say is... next time someone says, "to sharpen a knife, first sharpen a chisel"... I'm pointing them to
that thread). ;)
Quote from: Ken S on August 29, 2018, 11:21:09 AM
Rick,
Best of luck at the farmers market today! We will be with you in spirit.
There is an old saying that chance favors the prepared mind. You have certainly prepared. I like the combination of simplicity and precision that you have put into your jigs. I also think that your sharpening routine has evolved to a very practical level, allowing you to perform a very good job of sharpening in a time efficient manner.
Good work!
Ken
Thanks. And I am amused that it brought me back to almost the original, stock Tormek system. No fancy wheels and deburring/polishing schemes. I am certain the SG wheel would do just as well if it were used.
Rick
Rick,
As an IT manager, I live by the KISS methodology. When we get too complicated, we're doomed to failure ! And quite frankly, I'm not smart enough to make it complicated.
That's why I am a huge fan of the Tormek tools : someone else has figured out the details to make it easy for us. And when it's easy, it gets used. Dull tools are much more dangerous than sharp ones, and easy approaches to keeping them sharp are better for everyone.
You do know that once you hit $1,000,000, we are expecting that you will give-away of one of your pivot jigs ;).
Kind regards,
Rich
Quote from: RichColvin on August 29, 2018, 07:30:10 PM
...snip...
You do know that once you hit $1,000,000, we are expecting that you will give-away of one of your pivot jigs ;).
Kind regards,
Rich
I'll be ready ;D 8)
Quote from: RickKrung on January 02, 1970, 07:39:15 PM
Thanks. And I am amused that it brought me back to almost the original, stock Tormek system. No fancy wheels and deburring/polishing schemes. I am certain the SG wheel would do just as well if it were used.
Rick
At some point though, may want to consider adding a ceramic rod (or other item mentioned earlier). ;)
Probably goes without saying... but post how it goes!
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 29, 2018, 08:10:37 PM
...snip...
At some point though, may want to consider adding a ceramic rod (or other item mentioned earlier). ;)
Probably goes without saying... but post how it goes!
Have one, will put it in the kit. At what stage would you suggest it be used?
Rick
Quote from: RickKrung on August 29, 2018, 08:27:31 PM
Quote from: cbwx34 on August 29, 2018, 08:10:37 PM
...snip...
At some point though, may want to consider adding a ceramic rod (or other item mentioned earlier). ;)
Probably goes without saying... but post how it goes!
Have one, will put it in the kit. At what stage would you suggest it be used?
Rick
I use it after the main wheel, prior to the leather wheel, to debur the edge. (And sometimes that's all I use to finish the edge).
Using it prior to the leather wheel, speeds up the sharpening time, allows the leather to refine the edge better, (and other reasons)... IMO.
(This is rather lengthy and is getting away from the topic of this thread, so I'm going to port this over to a new thread, once this is posted here and will insert the new thread link here.)
https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=3725.0 (https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=3725.0)
The Farmer's Market went really well yesterday. I only sharpened five knives, four paying customers and a freebie for my daughter (a strange, unequal trapazoidal shaped veggie harvester [the knife, not my daughter, although she is a veggie harvester]). I charged $5 per blade. The low volume was to be expected as the availability of knife sharpening had only been announced the day before on the Market's Facebook page.
The market is open 3-6:30pm Weds. and had never before had anyone sharpening anything. It was very dead for the first hour, even for the other vendors (one berries, two veggies, one bakery and one fruit). It really picked up for the other vendors after that. While I only sharpened five knives at the market, there was a fair bit of interest by "passer-by"s and several asked "Oh, will you be here next week". My booth was at one end, next to the berries, so someone had to actually notice me over there and take an interest. One worman brought with her two knives her husband had given to her to get sharpened. Two others went home and brought back a knife. I also came home with five knives and a pair of scissors to sharpen. One of those five knives is quite interesting and will be very much a challenge, but more on that later and may deserve a thread of its own. That knife was among three others in a large canvas folding wrap like chef's use for storing and transporting their knives.
The two brought by the woman were, an ancient bone-handled "Buck"-like folding knife and an even more ancient "traditional" hunting knife with a leather ring handle (I didn't take any photos). Both were literally as dull as butter knives. The folding knife scored an impressively dull 1940 BESS. The hunting knife was extremely convex and thick, almost like an axe and had a "fuller" down it's length. It was even duller than the folding knife, so much so, I didn't measure it.
One of the "went home for" knives was a longer Farberware knife that was in decent shape, sharpened qickly and turned out my sharpest edge of the day from the basic treatment (see below). The last knife was a shorter "custom" hunting knife the guy got from his grandfather, who received it as a gift from the maker, but it supposedly never had and edge on it. They guy had tried to sharpen it, to no avail, but at least didn't really damage it.
Generally, for all the other knives, I used the SB stone and/or DF250, ceramic rod (CR)(thanks CB), leather wheel (LW) and SharpPAD (SP). The hunting knife seemed like it was going to take the most work, so I started with the DF wheel and finished as above. The custom knife was so beautiful I wanted to do a nicer job, so I started with the DF250 wheel (DF) and used the SJ stone between between the SB and LW. Specific combinations are listed below.
The angles on the folding, hunting and custom knives did not "measure" using my laser gionometer, so I had to "hunt" for the angles using black marker and my jigs. I think they didn't measure because they were so dull and rounded that they difused the laser beam too widely. I started with the shallowest angle that seemed right and set up the Tormek using whatever jig that was close. If that was too shallow, adjusted with the next jig until I got as good a match
as I could and then sharpened. They all ended up at 16º or 18º.
NUMBERS
I only measured three of the knives before sharpening, but for all the following measurements were taken during sharpening: After grinding and after stropping: Three measurements were taken, near the base, in the middle and near the tip and averaged. All measurements were taken using an Edge On Up PT50A which measures the force required to severe a standardized, certified media, in grams.
Cabbage Lopper
SB/CR/HW SP
250 222
Bone Handle Folding Before sharpening: 1940 gf
DF/CR/HW SP
365 215
Leather Handle
DF/SB/CR/HW SP
217 190
Farberware
SB/CR/HW SP
204 157
Custom
DF/SB/SJ/HW SP
289 169
For all knives, I did the paper push cut demonstration. All still had a few "catches" except the Farberware. But, all of the customers were VERY happy with the results and the lady that brought to two for her husband tipped an extra $5.
All in all, I think a very successful day and first attempt at a Farmer's Market. It was fun, but I think when it gets busier in subsequent weeks it will become less so and more like work. I anticipate "finishing" with the big event of it moving to a new location in mid-Sept.
Oh Yikes, my daughter posted a photo on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/bakercityfarmersmarketor/?fb_dtsg_ag=AdzAgL5j1Mh_USnFWtnGynL79khBe9C3II3yOksiIL9tJQ%3AAdzJcYwf4Sg3kNDOC9ST1-vKzf7JZz5PPqoxky3Apy83nQ (https://www.facebook.com/bakercityfarmersmarketor/?fb_dtsg_ag=AdzAgL5j1Mh_USnFWtnGynL79khBe9C3II3yOksiIL9tJQ%3AAdzJcYwf4Sg3kNDOC9ST1-vKzf7JZz5PPqoxky3Apy83nQ)
Quote from: RickKrung on August 29, 2018, 04:25:49 AM
...snip...
But, I was in the middle of making those jigs, so I finished two more 14º and 12º for a set of four. I think that should cover it for routine blades at a FM.
I have to say, I think these jigs are the Queen Bees Knees!
...snip...
Rick
These jigs were discussed in another thread (https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=3936.msg27372#msg27372) and I posted drawings for the four that I made. Cross posting those drawings here for completeness.
Rick
Rick,
as a distant spiritual father, from a country over the pond, I am really happy to see your family of the setting jigs and to read that you find it cool. From your post I have learned the American slang phrase bees' knees. :)
Jan
P.S.: It is nice to see you sharpening at FM.
Rick,
Did you use skate-board ball bearings like these "https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002BBD6X4/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 ?
Kind regards,
Rich
Rich,
I used 1/4"x5/8" stainless bearings, purchased from McMaster-Carr (https://www.mcmaster.com/catalog/125/1220). The URL only takes you to the page, not the specific item. Here are the specs from that page:
R4 1/4" 5/8" 0.196" 440C Stainless Steel 260 75 45,000 Lubricated -40° to 240° ABEC-1 6138K13 7.89
I used stainless on everything, all from McM-C
Shoulder bolts:
5/8" 10-24 3/8" 3/8" 3/16" Passivated 70,000 1/8" ASME B18.3 90298A539 2.60 2.21
Washers:
No. 10 0.203" 0.438" 0.025"-0.040" Not Rated __ 100 92141A011 2.33
Nyloc Nuts:
10-32 3/8" 15/64" 220° 100 91831A411 6.27
NOT cheap! I ordered enough bearings for all four jigs, 16 total, which were the major cost ($101). Total order was $139.
I used stainless because of the proximity to water. With proper care ordinary steel could be used. Given that I was going to be using them at farmers markets and wouldn't have time for "proper care", I opted for stainless.
Rick
Hello,
I'm in the process of trying to see if I can 3D-print these brilliant jigs, as I am no machinist, nor do I have easy access to one.
Regarding the bearings, I understand they will make the jig much more wear-resistant, but I was wondering, as I do not sharpen hundreds of knives a year : what if I 3d-printed the circular part protruding from the bottom as part of the plate ? The cost of reprinting compared to the cost of stainless bearings might make it worth a shot. Plus, I can always print the hole for the bearing axis, so I can mount some when the discs show significant wear...
Any thoughts ?
Thanks,
Nick.
Quote from: tgbto on April 02, 2021, 10:14:59 AM
Hello,
I'm in the process of trying to see if I can 3D-print these brilliant jigs, as I am no machinist, nor do I have easy access to one.
Regarding the bearings, I understand they will make the jig much more wear-resistant, but I was wondering, as I do not sharpen hundreds of knives a year : what if I 3d-printed the circular part protruding from the bottom as part of the plate ? The cost of reprinting compared to the cost of stainless bearings might make it worth a shot. Plus, I can always print the hole for the bearing axis, so I can mount some when the discs show significant wear...
Any thoughts ?
Thanks,
Nick.
I'm sure you could do that, but I think they would wear so quickly as to become useless until you did install bearings. The manner of detecting the angle, that I use at least, involves rotating the stones/wheels until there is enough of them rotating due to contact with the grinding surface. I suspect you could use the jig in a manner were you "sight" this contact without rotating the grinding wheels, so as to minimize wear of the contact points.
Stainless steel bearings don't have to be expensive. I just bought a set of 10, for $30 off Amazon (//http://). I am certain they are not high quality, but for the purpose of these jigs, I am sure they would work. The URL above is for bearings with an OD of 1/2", which is smaller than my design, but I also suspect one could find similarly inexpensive bearings with an OD of 5/8". I would make sure to get "sealed" bearings rather than "open" is the only caveat.
You should know, however, that I do not use these jigs any longer. They work great, but I have found that setting the sharpening angles is much faster, more consistent/accurate and easier measuring the distance from the USB bar to the surface of the grinding or honing wheels. I don't have time right now to search for the many threads where this is discussed, but if you haven't found them by the time I can search a little, I'll post some later. It is one of the methods included in the TormekCalc2 spreadsheet and I know some of the calculator apps will provide this distance.
Rick
Quote from: RickKrung on April 02, 2021, 04:06:04 PM
... snip
I have found that setting the sharpening angles is much faster, more consistent/accurate and easier measuring the distance from the USB bar to the surface of the grinding or honing wheels. I don't have time right now to search for the many threads where this is discussed ...
You can find the original approach in the link in my "signature". It is, imho, still the fastest and easiest method ;)
Quote from: Dutchman on April 03, 2021, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from: RickKrung on April 02, 2021, 04:06:04 PM
... snip
I have found that setting the sharpening angles is much faster, more consistent/accurate and easier measuring the distance from the USB bar to the surface of the grinding or honing wheels. I don't have time right now to search for the many threads where this is discussed ...
You can find the original approach in the link in my "signature". It is, imho, still the fastest and easiest method ;)
I love it, Dutchman. Thanks for "rooting" us at the beginning and thank you again for your awesome work and contribution.
Rick
I was the first forum convert to Dutchman's Grinding Tables in 2013. At the time, I was sharpening chisels and plane blades. I had devised a method of standardizing set up. I saw the potential of using Dutchman's tables to standardize knife sharpening. His tables became the foundation of my kenjig.
Over the years, I have dabbled with the other programs. I have only good things to say about them; however, Dutchman's tables have remained my go to source. They give me repeatable sharpness. I have no need of interchangeable knives with matching bevels to the nth degree. I generally sharpen my knives to 15° edge bevels, and can adjust with the marker and microadjust on the rare occasions when I want something else.
Dutchman's tables have served me well.
Ken
Quote from: Jan on August 24, 2018, 01:45:52 PMRick, your interest pleases me. You are almost correct in your considerations. :)
I have considered 250 mm and 160 mm stones and have found shift of the tangent line 1.4 mm and 2.1 mm respectively.
For a projection length 139 mm the centres of the USB for bevel angles 10, 15 and 20⁰ lie on a circle with radius 133.54 mm.
Your drawing angles differ from my USB positions for bevel angles 10, 15 and 20⁰ by some 5.2⁰, which is an angle given by the geometry of the knife jig and the USB (atan(12 mm/ (139-6) mm) = 5.16⁰).
CB, I guess in my country they are one or two dozens of Tormekers using this setting tool. Some people printed it on a 3D printer. My is metallic. ;)
Jan
Jan,
Where can I get the STL file for this 3D print?
Rich
This may be an exceedingly dumb question- will all these interesting new techniques work with the self centering jig?
Quote from: sharpening_weasel on February 14, 2023, 02:21:04 PMThis may be an exceedingly dumb question- will all these interesting new techniques work with the self centering jig?
Not dumb at all. I think most will work to some extent (there's a lot in this thread), maybe with some modifications. For example Jan's template for setting the location of the knife would have to be modified. Some techniques rely on a specific Projection Distance, which was easier to set with the older jig, (since you could adjust the Stop Collar), so they would still work, just need to be adjusted.
So, yes, they should work, some with some modification.
I agree with CB. The various setting jigs we have devised will probably require some rethinking with the new jigs. Some will become less practical as is. However, whatever setting methods we devise with the new jigs will have the notable advantage of being self centering.
As we become more familiar with the new KJ-45 jig, our present SVM jigs will increasingly become part of our box of older, no longer used gear. They have served us well, but have become obsolete. Some of us, including me, have several jigs milled to match different knife thicknesses, with in between thicknesses filled in with feeler gages. Wootz' (Vadim's) jig modifications is quite clever, but no longer necessary.
In time, I expect even the new KJ-45 jig to be replaced. Since I first purchased my T7 in 2009, almost all of the jigs have been redesigned at least once. Even the T7 was replaced with the T8. Yes, these all still work; however, Tormek is an innovative company and better keeps improving.
Ken
Quote from: Ken S on February 14, 2023, 07:01:02 PMThey have served us well, but have become obsolete.
Ken, I respectfully disagree with this statement. I've recently purchased two additional older jigs from my usual supplier who was getting rid of them, for a total of <edit, just counted> 8. I have two of them mounted with a Pin pivot collar, not so much for pivoting as for being able to keep the projection distance identical when sharpening a bunch of standard knives along with a couple much longer or shorter ones.
With the thickness of knives I'm sharpening, I never run into trouble with a visually, significantly assymetrical bevel. I use the KJ for the odd very thick knife. As for convexing with the KJ, I have mounted a BGM-100 on a support for use with my tiny belt grinder, it works a charm with older jigs, and I can choose to convex just a bit or a lot with a combination of belt curvature and pressure. Convexing on the Tormek with the KJ feels very unnatural to me : I hate it when the knife seems to be willing to ride up the stone when I release the jig pressure on the USB, as well as the clack-clack involved. I even think one is better off convexing with the older jigs by gradually modifying the projection distance by rotating the jig handle.
I purchased the Tormek as a time saver for my sharpening sessions, and I think it shines when sharpening knives in bulk. I still find the KJ to be a major step backwards. I don't foresee getting rid of my SVMs.
Nick.
Nick,
We are not far apart in our thinking. Like you, I have been frustrated by not having enough jig travel to keep the Projection setting the same with all of my knives. I had not thought of using a pivot collar for that. That's a clever idea. I stumbled upon the fact that the pre 2002 SVM-45 and SVM-100 jigs had longer shafts. The longer shaft allows me to use my 139 mm Projection with small knives. I prefer that to using the SVM-00. However, it seemed unfair to me to include using a long out of production jig in the kenjig technique. I have purchased two older jigs, although I realize others might not be as fortunate.
I have no plans to "get rid of my SVMs". In fact, I just had a machinist modify two of my eight following Vadim's suggestion. For my simple sharpening needs, I have not felt the need to convex edges.
I am keeping the jury out on the future of knife jigs. I do believe that eventually we will be using self centering jigs. I am not certain whether the KJ jigs will be the future or a bridge to the future. Until that time, I plan to keep both options open.
Ken
Ken,
Then I no longer disagree ;)
I think an adjustable, self centering jig would be ideal...
Me,too! :)
And me!
As I said before somewhere on the forum, a self centering, adjustable ( in terms of projection) jig would be ideal. It can't be difficult to achieve surely?
I had considered cutting off the self centering clamp off the new KJ and welding it to the clampless shaft of the old SVM jig ( ie the clamp removed with a hacksaw).
Ho hum..............