Messages

Good morning Jeff.
I'm not sure how to interpret "use a Little pressure against the stone."  Does that mean "Light Pressure"?  I've been pressing the grader as hard as I can against the stone.  Gipper

Out of the box, the "Pinnacle" 1 ¼" Roughing Gouge worked really well and I was impressed.  But working on Project No. 2, I felt the tool was becoming dull and decided to sharpen it with the Tormek.  Two questions became apparent.
After the initial set up, I found that the center of the tool was in full contact with the bevel face.  On the other hand, the left side contacted the grinding wheel on the edge of the bevel.  On the right side, the contact was on the heel of the bevel.  I think I set the tool in the SVS-50 just right, so I was surprised to find the different contact points within the full bevel surface.  Does this sound right or do you think I might be doing something wrong?

The second concern I have is this.  In the process of grinding (about the same as re-shaping in this case), it is taking a very long time to re-shape the tool with the Tormek 250 grind stone, so that the Wheel fully contacts the bevel face in all places.  The tool is said to be made of High-Speed-Steel, HSS.  Should I be using a different grinder with this type steel?  Gipper

Hi Jeff.
I don't know what "face-grain" stock is.  Reason I ask is because, while I'm waiting for the new gouge to arrive, I've set two short blocks up to test the gouge.  One block, I have the grain running parallel to the long axis.  The other, I have the grain running perpendicular to the long axis.  Will there be any problem using the rough gouge with either of these two block?  I'm basically going to be turning a "classical urn" shape for both blocks.  Gipper

Hi Ken S.
I'll forgive you this time.  LOL.
Jeff said something that stuck with me.  He said, "You can turn small stock with big tools, but you can't turn big stock with small tools".  Other experienced turners agree with that statement.  So looking for that 1 1/4" Roughing Gouge, I found I just can't afford the cost of a "Robert Sorby" gouge right now.  So I opted for a "Pinnacle" 1 1/4" Roughing Gouge instead.  Let's see how that turns out.  Of course, any comments, pros or cons, are always appreciated.  Gipper

Bill,
To further prove to yourself the accuracy of the Micro Adjust Nut, mark off 1" (25.4mm) on the threads of the USB, then count the number of threads.  You should count 17.  Divide 25.4mm by 17 equals 1.5mm per thread.  Now rotate the Micro Adjust nut 360 degrees and you will find it equals one thread, or 1.5mm.  Divide 1.5mm by 6 (integers) equals 0.25mm per integer.  So now you will know that each integer on the Nut is, in fact, 0.25mm.  I do agree that truing by sight, sound, and feel, is better than by the numbers.  Going slower across the stone face is better than going faster.  Too fast will leave parallel grooves across the stone face, not good.  Going slow, smooth face, Good.  Gipper

Hi Jeff F.
How would you compare a Sorby 1 1/4" Roughing Gouge to a Sorby 3/4" Gouge?  Gipper

Of the two Universal Support bars I recently purchased, each Micro Adjust Nut has Six (6) integers on it.  According to Tormek, each integer moves the bar 0.25mm.  Are you sure yours has eight integers?  Gipper

OK, now that I've done a little research, I'm more confused than informed.  So, let me ask the question.  I want to buy a Roughing Gouge for general applications.  Describe the gouge I ought to buy.  That is, bevel angle, flat or fluted, etc.  Anything else?  Gipper

Whew!!!
No wonder I thought 5 "hours" was way too long!!!  Now to figure out what's wrong?
Looks like I'd better find out what a Roughing Gouge really looks like.  Thanks Jeff.  Gipper

I'm trying to turn a straight cylinder out of Sepele Mahogany.  The block is 3.25" x 3.25" x 5" long.  The finished piece is to be 3" diameter.  I chamfered the corners to reduce wood.  So, my question is this.  How long would it take an experienced Turner to finish this piece?  Which tools would you most likely to use?  Gipper

Woody,
You might try going to Tormek home page, click on "Where to Buy".  That might help a little.  Gipper

After only a few times grading the grindstone, I found that my Grader is "concave" in the middle.  Both course and fine sides are concave.  The course side is about .4mm in the center, and the fine side is about .9mm in the center.  I was surprised to find this but explains why my grindstone surface is convex in the center regardless of how much dressing I do.  Is there any way to re-dress the Grader?  Gipper

Thanks Robert.
Your information is very helpful.  Your modifications to the TT-50 is also interesting.  Can't figure out how it works but it got me to look more closely to how the "truing tool" really works.  It could be worth your time to contact Tormek about your modifications.  Who knows, they might be interested.  Gipper

[except]

I finally tested out the "theory" after receiving the second USB.  Turns out that there is a fourth variable that I did not account for.  There was also a big surprise that I'm yet to be able to explain.  That variable is the changing diameter of the Grindstone Wheel each time you grade from course to fine grit and cannot be changed to a constant.  For a given tool, the setting for Honing seems to be fairly constant.  However, if and when you need to regrind the tool, it is far better to start again, using the marker method, and reset the position of the USB relative to the existing tool bevel. Gipper

Everything in that statement is accurate except "...each time you grade from coarse to fine grit..."  The grading process removes very little grindstone. The grinding of the tool removes much more.

Hi Jeff,
In a previous reply on a different thread, you stated that grading the stone from course to fine and back to course, would remove only about one-thousandth of an inch. (0.025mm) stone surface.  I find it may be substantially more. (individual technique will vary).  But the fact is, I think, that when a tool needs to be re-ground, fine grit or course grit, there will be a need to re-adjust the USB to match the existing bevel face based on the "marker method".  This is due in part, I believe, to the "fourth variable", wheel diameter.  In any case, I'm not going to make any conclusions until further "tests" are made.  I might add, this is part of the surprise I mentioned above; not all however.  Gipper

Having a second USB can create another problem.

It means that you always have to sharpen the tool on the wheel with it coming towards the tool in the vertical mode.

This is fine for some tools but uncomfortable for others where you need to swing the handle.

In the experiment, it is assumed that the USB#1 for grinding is removed from its position in the support sleeve, whether horizontal or vertical, after final grinding of the tool.  It is later re-inserted in its original position to repeat the grinding process.  Gipper