good god man you don't "Grind" a chisel !
ooooooh the humanity. Where did you start ? You have excelled to making
"Mortises" etc.... and you don't know how to shapen a chisel? Me thinks you
are trolling and need to change your bait
It is common to "grind" chisels. When honing no longer produces an
acceptable edge grinding is called for. I use a Baldor slow speed grinder
with a 120 grit wheel...usually at a 25 degree angle. After putting a
hollow grind on the tip, I then hone at the angle produced by the tip and
the heel. The advantage of grinding in this manner is that you don't need
to hone the entire bevel....just the tip and heel. Therefore, honing goes
much faster. Over time, the hollow grind will be removed by honing. When
you no longer have that hollow grind...regrind the chisel.
Not that I disagree but I've never taken a chisel to a grinding wheel
never.Every one of mine are hand rubbed with a flat bastard and then stroped
across a whet stone and fine emery cloth or water paper producing excellent
I would be afraid of the grind stone for two reasons first been,if you take
metal away,there's no putting it back and second if the grinding wheel is
used for other purposes and isn't dressed properly ie' small nicks and
uneveness it could cause other complications and as well may heat up and
change the hardness composition or temper of the edge which would fail. This
would lead me back to hand dressing the chisel.There's an interesting
article in januarys popular woodworking magazine by Nick Engler called Very
Scary Sharp. He's designed a honing guide complete with plans, it's a worth
while venture for precision sharpening
For me It's a labour of love. It's the way I was educated.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:22:30 -0330, Dan Parrell wrote:
I understand and I have the article. I was pointing out that the link I
gave is the same one as is referrenced in Nick's article. Nick's honing
jig is a value add to scary sharp as well as his mention of the
alternatives to glass.
It doesn't matter what tool you use, when you are shaping the bevel, you are
grinding. Grinding is merely the action of removing material through
friction. Me, I use a Tormek water wheel and leather wheel. I flatten the
backs on waterstones, but I find the Tormek much faster and more accurate
than the waterstones for doing the bevels.
OBTW, honing and polishing are also grinding. Just much finer forms.
Uh. OK. I got my definition from a dictionary (several, in fact). AFAIK,
wet stones, oil stones, leather strops and wheels with honing compound,
grinding wheels, sandpaper and any other sharpening media mentioned here all
have particles with arbitrary orientation. Even the file, while not truly
arbitrary, is not so precise that it could not be considered arbirary in
use. Beyond that, your definition is merely a refinement of the dictionary
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:56:20 GMT, "Eric Lund"
Bad move. Dictionaries are handy for spellings and The Only Real
Dictionary is useful for historical etymology, but even the Oxford
falls apart when it comes to definitions of technical terms.
And Webster's isn't even a dictionary, it's a political tract for
ICBW but I was under the impression that much of the spelling differences
between Us English and British English occurred after the 1780s. And it
the British that changed their spelling.
i.e. "color" is the origional spelling of the word
And still, there's nothing in the extended definition that can't get back to
the basic dictionary definition, of which Webster's was not among those
selected. Furthermore, I believe the basic contention I replied to was that
you do not grind a chisel. I would contend that using a wet stone is as
much grinding as using a motor mounted "grinding" stone.
The two definitions were:
1. "Grinding is merely the action of removing material through friction."
2. "Not at all. Grinding is removing material in (small) chips with
"geometrically undefined tools", since the edges of the grinding
particles have an arbitrary orientation."
I include the not at all, because I dispute that point. I would agree with
more specifically, but I certainly do not agree with not at all. Both
definitions begin essentially the same. Small chips is only slightly more
specific, and, by the reasonable man legal precept, be implied in the
original definition. Now, I know we use the reasonable man thing here in
the backwoods of the colonies. Since most American states base their law on
British law, I presume that you might have some familiarity with that
concept. The geometrically undefined tools is another way of saying that no
specific tool is defined here for the purpose, and so says exactly NOTHING.
The edges of the grinding particles having an arbitrary orientation
indicates clearly that on some scale, friction will apply, since the
particles will clearly not apply a refined shearing force. I'm not sure I'm
making that final point as generally as I should, but I think you get the
Since we are talking about woodworking tool, I would contend that the
simpler definition is certainly adequate.
: The edges of the grinding particles having an arbitrary orientation
: indicates clearly that on some scale, friction will apply, since the
: particles will clearly not apply a refined shearing force.
I have an old Scientific American article saying that there are two kinds of
Some particles are so shaped that they act as cutting tools and form
shavings (of a kind).
Others have a ploughing action.
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.