Messages

Both fair points.  For me, this is both enjoyable and educational.  Learning what the Tormek can (and cannot) do is interesting.  The tangents - such as sharpening of a milling bit - is equally interesting.  For curiosity, I've been researching what and how milling bits are sharpened.  Rather interesting set of tools and knowledge.

While I won't suggest trying to convert a gazelle into a giraffe - with the advent of the diamond wheels, the philosophical delta becomes the machinist level accuracy of adjustment (at a high level).  Due to my insatiable curiosity on this topic, have spent some hours researching (for my own education) on everything involved.  Found some interesting videos from "this old tony" on this topic.  Particularly interesting.

Greatly appreciate the feedback and information on this.

Wasn't sure - thought it worth asking.  If circular file is best solution - so be it.  May still try to 'play' with it a bit.  Biggest issue is likely just getting to a 'perfectly flush' end, eg: constant/consistent rotation of the bit while moving side-to-side vs. changing diameter of the stone.  The most interesting issue is likely the facets on the flutes, but with the MB-100 and the diamond wheels - may be possible.

Which raises another interesting point: How does one true the stone for use with the MB-100?  <runs and hides> 

Rich,

Yes indeed - with your post, pinged the local dealer on the wheels + the MB-100.  Problem: TS-740 only has enough space for 2 more wheels.  <grin>

Thanks!

All,

Curious what options (if any) and/or recommendations for being able to sharpen milling bits.  Was handed a carbide milling bit - 12.68 mm - that has some damage (it was making it's way to the garbage).  Curious to see if there is a means to sharpen.

Attached is a picture - while this may be a candidate for the circular file, was thinking it's a opportunity to work with another material and type of bit.

Thanks!

Quick comment to prior post - had thought about attempting to use the SJ-250 on the facets, but was concerned that I wouldn't be able to exactly match the angles.  Had wondered if the extra finishing with the 4K grit would enable longer life and better cutting by the bit.

Ken,

Will take a look at the URL - Thanks!

Yes, not sure what may be 'amiss'.  I like to break out the manual that came with it, each time I sharpen bits.  Enables me to double check steps and ensure that they are being followed - until I get to a point where the process becomes natural.

While most bits may be 118 degrees, this one was originally a 90 degree - a bit of an odd "critter", but designed to be specific to purpose (vs. standard drill bit).  Admittedly, given what the Tormek can do - could easily convert to a different angle, but would like to keep the 90 degree angle.  The only other possibility - granted haven't checked because I think it "highly unlikely" - is that the jig mounting bar is not absolutely square.  From a comparison to a 2nd one, (just rough view) - looks straight.  Perhaps I should try with the other bar to see if that makes a difference.  Yes, when I decided to get into the "Tormek thing" - picked up every jig, all 3 grind stones, the rotating base and even the Tormek workbench/cabinet.  Probably a little excessive, but makes for a nice little workstation and keeps things clean and tidy.

Since all the standard drill bits that I've done (118 degree) have come out virtually perfect, following the manual - not sure that it's an angle.  Unless the suggest angles (based on diameter) on the angle tool aren't correct for a 90 degree bit?  Thoughts?

Attached is an image of the first drill bit that I had attempted to sharpen on the Tormek - that was via simply following the manual.

Thanks!

Ken,

Agree that the DBS-22 is an excellent jig.  The education curve and perhaps price may be a barrier to more widespread adoption.  Although the price (IMHO) is fair for the components of the jig - especially if you consider it as an investment over some time period (10+ years?)

I'll have to give it a try on another 90 degree bit and see if that works out.  Using standard method, the left hand side corner is what will catch the stone.  Worst case, I chew up a drill bit and have to replace it - which is amicable to determine if it works.

I did play with the quick connect/disconnect style drill bits.  Due to their hex styled connection - it makes it a bit awkward.  I did have good luck getting 4-facet point - especially after learning the "re-center" step.

RE: 6-facet / spade / brad : Given the exacting nature, would prefer to purchase a unit "already setup" (so I'm not the one to screw up the hole...).  Also means that I've have a slide plate/top for standard drills and a slide plate/top for 6-facet/spade/brad.  Do you happen to know if just the slide plate and associated top plate can be purchased without purchasing the entire setup?  (eg: "replacement" parts)

Thanks!

So Rich's post "Jeff Fischer's video" - was the key.  While using the DBS-22 on a worn bit, you do the primary facet - then stop and "reset" the drill bit to be parallel with the lines on the bit holder (or pin).  This is key.  Unfortunately, this wasn't listed as a step that one should take (possibly inferred?).  While the geometry and changes through process should be evident - this minor nuance was evading me, due to not thinking/realizing what was changing while being opposite the action.  Once realizing and thinking through what was happening - everything became quite clear.  It was more about how much was removed (or not) and how it changed the geometry of the bit in the holder.  (Also happens to illuminate what to consider if working on a broken bit, etc)

The adjusted process should be re-documented as:

- True Stone (optional)
- Set bar distance w/angle tool
- Set jig angle w/angle tool
- Set bit depth using depth gauge
- Align bit in holder based on 'current' geometry
- grind
- Re-align bit to match indicators (or pin), if it doesn't line up
    - Do not expect primary grind results to be "parallel" to the lines, particularly true if more material needs to be removed to get to a good starting surface
- Set secondary facet angle
- Set secondary facet depth
  - Starting with "existing" (touching stone) depth and slowly working up.
  - Small bits may only require 1/8 turn (or less) to get secondary facet.  Very easy to overrun (as Jeff Fischer points out in his video)
- grind
- hone (optional)

Evidently, the correction of the primary facet was enough to cause the bit's geometry to become offset - as Jeff Fischer noted.  This isn't listed in the Tormek docs or Tormek video.  Granted, one may argue that said operator should have caught this during process - however having it documented would have been most helpful for those new to the process.  This minor nuance makes the difference between "it's just a bit" and what appears to be a perfect 4 facet bit.  Tried process on a couple bits - variety of sizes and the adjusted process yields the correct results.

+1 to Rich for locating a source that 'caught' the issue.

Follow-on question: given what happens with a 90 degree angle - what's the implications of extending the bit (ie: more length on the action side) so that the bit holder cannot come into contact with the grind stone?  With larger bits where it's easy to see the alignment the amount of bit between the holder and the grindstone shouldn't change anything - should it?  Can't seem to visualize how, say "doubling" the amount of shaft, would negatively impact the process.  The process seems solely dependent on the angles and rotation of the bit's head - not the location of the bit holder on the sliding plate - correct?  Doubling shaft length would alleviate the good chance of scraping the bit holder on the grindstone.

Thanks!

RE: noticed same issue as DrSpin (existing thread from March 2017).  There seems to be a lot of "play" between the plate and moving 'top' of the jig.

Not sure if the "play" is 'at play' with an issue.  Attempting to sharpen a 1/2" x ~24 inch bit that is 90 degree - designed for wood.  The issue I've encountered is that following the videos and reading, no matter what I do - the primary facet gets removed when attempting to generate the secondary facets.  For clarity, here are my base steps:

Using SB-250 grindstone (also tried with the SG-250, but it was taking what seemed to be an excessively long period of time).
1) Use TT-50, true stone
2) Set bar distance via Tormek angle tool "hole"
3) Set jig angle to grindstone via angle tool (9 degrees)
4) Set bit depth via jig depth gauge
5) Adjust bit so that primary facet is parallel to bit holder center line (or slightly greater than center line - ie: worn bit guidance per manual)
6) Adjust primary facet stop depth so that bit touches grindstone, adding 1/8 - 1/4 turn to ensure that surface is "flush"
7) Grind both sides (results look good this far)
Make sure that Secondary facet stop is against Primary facet stop

-- Tried the following repeating the above steps, so that cycle is complete:
9) Adjust 1.5 turns.  Results: primary facet(s) appear to be removed (ground off)
9) Adjust 4.5 turns.  Results: primary facet(s) appear to be removed (ground off)

Haven't seen anything where someone has posted about running into this issue.  Hoping that someone with more experience with the DBS-22 may be able to point me in the right direction.  Another peculiar point is that the angle is evidently "extreme enough" that you cannot traverse the entire grindstone as the drill bit holder portion of the jig will intersect the grind stone at about 75% of the distance - moving from left to right.  It's this last point that gives me pause.  Given how everything else has created the ability to fully traverse a stone (left to right and back) - the fact that this angle cannot traverse the stone has left me wondering if there's "something else" that may be missing from the equation.

For reference, had no issue with other drill bits (1/2" and slightly smaller), but the angles where 118, 135, etc.  The only difference (in this case) is the 90 degree angle.  The bit in question is meant for drilling through wood only and it has a hole roughly mid-way through the fluted section of the shaft to use as a "pull" for lead line (wire installation/s).

In the end, if replacing a drill bit is part of the initial learning process - that's OK.  Just need to understand what/why this doesn't appear to be working as documented - to learn corrected process.

One other question, has anyone attempted to sharpen drill bits with "quick" connect/disconnect fittings?  Bits of this nature with sufficient length to span the bit holder, sharpen without issue.  Smaller diameters (shorter shaft) where the (integrated) connector ends up in the bit holder and the drill bit holder doesn't have solid contact with the bit "itself" - doesn't seem to work out too well.  Thoughts?  (Suspect that these simply cannot be sharpened, but thought it worth posing the question).

6 facet looks quite tantalizing, but until one has mastered 4 facet... (hopefully by then a "6 facet" jig will be available and a jig for spade bits)

Thanks!

That looks absolutely awesome!

RE: "wobble", almost makes one wonder if a bit of re-design shouldn't happen:
- move drive screw to a more "centered" position, enabling:
- use of ball-bearings (logical "front" and "back") to ensure that movement of the truing tip can only be "side to side".
- move to Rick's design (motorized + speed control) and micro switches at each end to enable "auto-reversing" of the motor to true in "multi-pass" mode.

In looking at your zip ties - went ahead, doing same, and attempted to re-true my SJ-250.  The "more bound" (less movement/wobble) made a substantial improvement in the results.  Had a portion that was "wavy" from previous truing attempt(s).  A good portion of that was removed.  Suspect that a couple more passes (removing barely topical amount) will completely clear that issue.

The balance of the stone's surface (majority of width) came out far better than previous.  If you look at the right hand 20%, you'll see the uneven cuts into the stone (see attached image).  Suspect that this may have been a result of the truing tip being able to 'bounce' off the stone due to "wobble" (movement space, albeit small - but present).  The zip tie effect appears to hold the tip at a fixed distance.  Thus, only removing at a specific depth and preventing it from being able to "dip" down into the stone.  On an SG-250, likely not an issue.  However on the much softer SJ-250 - huge difference.

Have to wonder how many people end up inadvertently applying "downward" pressure, because of hand weight or "resting" of the hand (possibly added limb weight) onto the truing tool - also impacting the result(s).

@Rick K - noted on name.  Wow!  Was not expecting that you'd be working on CAD drawings.  (I'm excited!). If there's something that I can lend to this/help - please let me know.  (Not sure what I can provide, but interested in helping if possible).

@Ken S - Despite the cost of the stones, I see those as purely consumable and one shouldn't be overly concerned with it's depletion.  If truing happens to remove more than the sharpening, but ensures consistent angle - I'm fine with replacement.  Granted, don't want it to be yearly, unless I'm doing enough sharpening to account for it.  . I don't have any inhibition about truing it repeatedly and regularly.  I think the first few times is more about getting used to/comfortable with some of the odd noises and vibrations that come with it's use.  Those were [arguably] the most disconcerting the first few rounds with each type of stone.

I'm in the same camp (as well) as Rick K and Ken S in terms of things - overbuilt/peace of mind to ensure that things are optimal.

@Elden - love it!  (got a good chuckle).

@Ken S - I would be apt to do more truing (likely Tormek would sell more grindstones as a result) of having a consistent means to ensure that the stone is true.  I already had one experience where I had to re-do a knife because I didn't realize that there was a minor slope across the stone.  This wasn't obvious until you looked at the resultant blade.  Granted, I'm doing all of this for myself (not professionally), but having things "just right" is nice.

I believe RichKrung is onto something with the small stepper motor.

Ken,

The original reason for 'my' commentary is the premise that an organic engine input (hands) likely would have an impact.  For example, learned that the SJ-250 needs an *extremely* slow movement.  (>90 seconds) otherwise, you'll end up with what appear to be "waves" on/in the stone.  Resulting in the need to make multiple passes to "fix the fix".  Seeing how something like that can occur, my preference would be to remove the organic component so that the results are consistent every time and correct the first time around.  I also noticed that as you grab/rotate/change between hands trying to keep a constant movement/pressure - that on the SG wheel, not an issue.  On the SJ wheel, it appears to be far more sensitive.  Which my suspicion is that this fact had bearing on why/how the "wave" happened - not just speed across the stone.  Something akin to a minor "torquing" of the tip on the stone.  - Granted, some conjecture is involved and would be most amicable to thoughts on that.

Granted, I'm far "newer" at using the Tormek than [likely] the majority of folks on this site.  However, learning a great deal and of course - learning through mistakes as well.  (Fewer being the optimal goal).  <sheepish grin>

Perhaps being "hopeful" that Tormek would produce an AC-based truing tool variant (as previously described) so that outside of setting height adjustment that there's far less potential for mistakes as part of one of the most critical maintenance tasks.

I use a coffee cup warmer - although it doesn't help with refills. 

Start and grab coffee.... Perfection!

I was thinking purely "automatic".  Turn on after setting speed and let it go to town without having to worry about it.

The motor sounds like an excellent start.  A variac certainly provides option(s) for speed.  I'll have to look into that Jameco motor - as I have a couple things where that would be useful.