Messages

It's good you posted this... some forums "frown" on reviving old threads (it's why I asked when I started posting).  For this forum, I think there's a number of threads that can be "brought back"... like you said they have valuable info... and are pretty much "timeless" in what they provide.

[cbwx34]

cbwx34, your "Knife Sharpening with the Tormek: Links/References" http://wp.me/P93bLq-g is really something... that's the reference indeed covering most topics said by Tormek and this forum on knife sharpening.
With your permission, I am adding link to your reference on my website in the Sharpening Resources section.

The only two topics I found missing, and they are truly the two only that are missing, otherwise you've done an exhaustive compilation - are:

Middle overgrinding discussion - every knife sharpener must be aware of this from the very start https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=3055.msg16402#msg16402

and stone truing & grading hints https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=3053.msg16372#msg16372

Thank you

Thanks... and thanks for the links, I've added them.  Feel free to add the link to your site.

Any other suggestions (from anyone) are welcome!  I'm finding new info every day.

No thoughts on the differently profiled collars?

I have a thought on it this a.m....  it might be better to reduce the size of the collar (considerably).

I've been working with the clamp from the KME sharpener... this morning I just used a small washer so that I could pivot the blade with as little interference from the collar as possible (basically keeping the pivot point near center, and held it against the USB with my thumb)....



... as you can see in the sample picture... keeping the pivot point small, and properly positioning the clamp (still necessary of course), allows the blade to pivot with little position change as a result of the collar.  (Feels more comfortable too... across a variety of knives).

Might be the route to take.

CB,

In this case, the Anglemaster is not the problem. If the sides of all knives were ground parallel, this problem would be minimized.

Ken

I'm not saying the AngleMaster won't work... just looking for better solutions.  Your point that all knives aren't ground parallel, is one reason the AngleMaster isn't an easy way to set the angle.  Sure there are alternatives... most knives have a flat spot on the blade you can use, you can measure the knife grind and adjust for it, etc.

But, picture an "AngleMaster 2.0" that, for example, took the reading right from the flat portion of the (improved ) knife jig.  Throw in a digital gauge (what a lot of guided sharpeners are moving to) for improved accuracy.  Should make setting the angle faster, and more accurate.  (Trust me, if I had the means to do some of this... I'd give it a shot).

My ultimate hope is that some ideas can come from this thread, that might be worth incorporating on a wider level... if that makes sense.  (And points like yours further the ideas... thanks!)

... our Frontal Vertical Base for Tormek T7 for angle-controlled honing and edge-trailing grinding for free.
As a big thank you for your Grinding Angle Adjustment study and booklet - the main thing that made precision sharpening to under 1 micron edge possible for me.
You can have a look at the base on our website http://knifegrinders.com.au/11Shop_VB.htm

Dutchman's study is publicly available from a link in here http://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=1849.0

This is cool.  I've often thought that the support for the wheel turning away, should also be vertical... or at least have the option.

My latest iteration of what I've been working on here, puts the attachment in a vertical position (see attached picture).

Yours is an elegant solution.  So, translated... an adapter to easily convert the horizontal USB to a vertical setup you already have available.  Nice job.  (Kinda wish I saw it earlier haha).

I want the honing wheel positioned such that the grinding wheel is not in the way while honing (long) cooks knives.
A separate honing system would also be an option, but would be expensive due to the additional motor.

If you have the "profile honing wheel"... you can add the standard leather wheel to that and give yourself a bit more room.  Since the honing wheel won't have the guide to center it on the shaft, I found if you put the profile setup vertical, then put the honing wheel on top, it will pretty much "self center" (if you try this it should make sense).  Once you have the honing wheel locked in place, then put the whole setup onto the Tormek. (Picture attached).

So, translated, an extension where the honing wheel could be easily mounted to give a bit more room between wheels might be the solution?

Some good ideas already!

Regarding the Anglemaster and setting knives, I have found the Anglemaster works well. The trick is to use a substitute target. Measure the projection of the knife edge from the adjustable stop. Substitute two thicknesses of plastic gift card for the knife in the jig. Set the gift cards to project the same amount as the knife. Place the jig in the universal support with the cards resting against the grinding wheel. The flat surface of the gift cards gives an easy measuring surface for the Anglemaster.

Ken

Ken, this is a good idea... but it pretty much reinforces my thought that a better designed (or alternative) AngleMaster would be beneifical.

In a couple of recent posts... it's been mentioned that knife sharpening is not the main focus of the Tormek.  But it appears Tormek is venturing more into this field, with the creation of the T-2 specifically for kitchen/commercial sharpening of knives... and also the recent T-4 "Bushcraft Edition"...



So... here's my question.  What would you like to see, and/or, what do you think would make the Tormek a better knife sharpener?  Some have already been mentioned (and some I've added):

• Self Centering Clamp
• Faster and easier way to set the angle (i.e. an alternative to the AngleMaster)
• Improvements to the jig (or a new jig) to make it easier to maintain a consistent angle thru the curve of blade to the tip

... and one a bit outside the box...

• I'd like to see a ceramic rod that could easily be kept with the machine (I use one quite a bit).  Perhaps even mounted so that a knife could be run across it while attached to the Tormek.

So, what's on your list?  (If it's the same as what someone else posts... post it anyway... maybe an idea of what's most important will surface).

I have horizontal platform for sharpening in both directions...

Jan

Was gonna mention this before... if you ever sold your setup as a kit.... I'd be first in line.  Nice setup.

Would love to see what that is,...

https://youtu.be/AcWAkQmoU8c

...

• create 3 collars, all of equal thickness (yes, i increased from 2 to 3, so the length of the jig doesn't need to change to match the kenjig system).
  
  
  
  • collar 1) a shallow, gentle sweep
  • collar 2) match the stock collar profile
  • collar 3) a more intense curve
• redraw the kenjig alignment template with 3 arcs drawn and labeled to match the 3 collars
• setup the knife in the jig using the template the same as always (with whichever collar you have on, as they're all the same thickness
• compare the curve of the blade to the 3 lines and match it up to the one that's the closest match
• swap out for the collar that corresponds with that line
• start grinding

My idea for the collar would be something simple, turned on the lathe, then cut in half, using pins and magnets to reconnect around the shaft.
Should add all of 10 seconds to the setup time for any knife that doesn't match the collar you had on the jig from the last knife you did

My .02.... I think the effort would be better spent making and using one of Herman Trivilino's jigs.

I don't think "maintaining bevel angle" vs. "bevel width" as separate issues... they are definitely tied together.  And, to me, it doesn't have to be one or the other... as Jan has stated, a combination of "lift" and "pivot" may give a compromise to both issues.

In my understanding the handle lifting approach is more aggressive in changing the bevel angle and also allows to sharpen long thick blades. From this point of view, lifting is more universal than the pivoting approach, which is smarter, but in pure form applicable only for thinner blades with "Tormekian" belly.

The compromise to both issues give us some freedom to find suitable trade-off between bevel angle and bevel width consistency along the edge.

Jan

I don't disagree that doing both may be a good compromise... but lifting the handle, for the most part, gives the same result.  I don't think it's more aggressive... because it goes back to placing it in the proper position relative to the pivot (just a change in pivot point).

Edit to add:  Jan, you might find this of interest... Geometry and Kinematics of Guided Rod sharpeners by Anthony Yan   While the Tormek isn't really a "Guided Rod" sharpener... it has a lot of info about sharpening in relation to a pivot point.

Thanks for the verification Jan

Soooo... Based on that example from cbwx:
In theory, it seems the only thing that could make for a truly universal setup/technique would be to have collars with different profiles to match different blade types?
I mean, you're obviously not going to have one to match every knife... But say you had even just 2 collars, so that you have the stock pivot angle, a more extreme pivot angle like the one needed for cbwx's example, and then a very gradual curve for something like that pig sticker scenario

Would that allow for a consistent method, using line of contact as a guide, while maintaining proper bevel angle?
(i almost feel like there should be two threads here. One that can discuss technique for maintaining bevel angle... And one to discuss how to keep a knife looking pretty, ie: maintaining bevel width at any cost  )

I think, if I read my picture right... you could use just one collar, and adjust the projection length to get everything to fit.  (Of course that eliminates the Kenjig... since you'd have to adjust the USB distance....).  Guess it comes down to what your needs are, for example the Kenjig speeds up the process for volume sharpening.  If you start introducing multiple collars, it might defeat the purpose, to some extent anyway.  (Plus, I'm not sure a lot of people have the means to make collars?)

I don't think "maintaining bevel angle" vs. "bevel width" as separate issues... they are definitely tied together.  And, to me, it doesn't have to be one or the other... as Jan has stated, a combination of "lift" and "pivot" may give a compromise to both issues.

Some blades can be sharpen from heel to the tip with no need to pivot while other blades with no need to lift the handle.

Based on my limited experience, the compromise between lifting and pivoting is the suitable approach.

Because it is crucial how the blade is clamped in the jig, some two years ago, I have prepared simple "Knife Tip Settig Template" for kenjig projection length of 139 mm. https://forum.tormek.com/index.php?topic=2654.0

This clamping guarantees that you will get the same bevel angle at the heel and at the tip, more or less with no need to lift the handle. The template is not a universal tool, it works fine only for limited set of blade shape's.

Wootz has shown several examples for which this approach does not provide consistent bevel width.   

Jan

P.S.: The template design was extracted by back engineering the radius of the adjustable stop of the knife jig.

Thanks for posting this.  Very helpful.

I think your template also illustrated why I feel the jig radius doesn't 'feel' quite right, and why Wootz found it didn't work for the knives he was sharpening, (and as you stated only for certain blade shapes).  If you look at the attached picture, you see the clamped knife doesn't fit the radius unless the knife is moved, which equals the the projection length being shortened if I'm 'reading' it right.  (So perhaps Wootz could have got it to worked if he had altered the projection length?)

(One thing I've learned in dealing with other guided sharpeners with a pivot... it's a little more complicated than it first appears). 

Your template is a good reference though... definitely helps define the process of what is going on. 

OMG, with knife that long and where he clamped it in the video, the tip SHOULD be pivoted towards yourself, or you will grind off the tip; other solution is to clamp closer to the tip, not at the centre.
I have all my respect to Jeff, he is a talented presenter - don't take this video as educational, it is 'advertorial' (not sure is this is a right word), but was never meant to be instructional.
I haven't had time yet to watch DVD that Ken mentioned, coming with T8, maybe some hints are there.

May not be ideal where the clamp was placed... but moving the clamp closer to the tip will increase the angle, resulting in a greater chance of grinding the tip off... not the other way around.  For the knife in the video... shouldn't be much of an issue where the clamp is placed... it's not a lot of change.

I think Jeff's video is designed to be an instructional video more than just an advertisement... there's too much detail.  My .02 anyway.

It seems there are two conflating issues about knife blade geometry being discussed here. For a knife with symmetric bevel angles there are two factors to consider.

1. If the cutting edge is not centered the bevel width on one side of the knife will not match the bevel width on the other side.

2. If the knife is thinner at the tip, then either the bevel width or the bevel angle, or both, will be different at the tip than elsewhere along the edge.

The only way to center a cutting edge is to grind more steel away from one side of the knife.

I agree that knife sharpening seems to be secondary to tool sharpening for the Tormek design.

I would add "thinner or thicker at the tip".  Many knives appear thinner, but the belly/tip area actually moves into a thicker part of the blade... depending on how it is ground.  (The width and/or angle will still change... but in the opposite direction).

While sharpening knives may be secondary... if you look at the "stats" of the forum, and eliminate the "General Tormek Questions" section... the "Knife Sharpening" section is only 88 posts (now 87) shy of equaling all the other sections combined.  So, the interest certainly appears to be there.