Irish grind vs Ellsworth gouge
Dinyar Chavda
have found others (cheaper) in various catalogs. Is there a big difference
between the Irish (Celtic) Grind and the Ellsworth Signature gouge? And
what is a Cut-Back grind?
Thanks for the information.
Dinyar
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Go here:
http://www.cuttingedgetools.com/Onlinecat.htm/WebCatalog/Taylor.Turn.htm
and scroll down to the end of the gouge listings. There will be a good photo
allowing you to side by side compare the Ellsworth Grind to the Liam O'Neil
(Irish) grind. The latter is swept back farther, allowing a much wider cut to
be taken (something that is not necessarilly advantageous). David believes that
his grind leaves "more mass beneath the edge" which he finds preferable.
FWIW, the Glaser grind is virtually identical to the Ellsworth. The O'Donnell
grind is about half way between the O'Neil and the Ellsworth. While David has a
good rationale for using 5/8 inch stock, Jordan does a somewhat similar grind
and prefers 1/2, and Jerry Glaser applies his grind to everything from 3/8 to
3/4.
Basically you can grind any of these shapes if you start with a Superflute
style (i.e. more V shaped rather than U shaped flute) gouge. Thus, I wouldn't
worry too much about which specific grind you start with, as it will be easy to
switch between them. A good discussion of the Superflute by it's inventor is
located here: http://www.peterchild.co.uk/info1/sflute.htm
I haven't heard of the phrase "cut back" but one does often encounter the
generic phrase "swept back" used to apply to all of the above grinds.
Hope this helps,
Lyn
Richard Preston
I once asked David if I could put his grind on a Sorby gouge. He said no, that
he used Henry Taylor, of which the Superflute is one. There is a difference in
the shape of the flute, which to him is significant. He can't get his 5 cuts
with the Sorby.
Liam uses the Sorby. He gets a huge cut with that very long side grind.
.
So, pick one and go with it, but perhaps it's not true that you can switch back
and forth using the same gouge.
A lot can controlled, or limited, by one of the sharpening jigs. That way the
decision is made once and you live with it.
Regards,
Richard
WoodTurners Anonymous of Richmond, Va, an AAW Chapter
Steven D. Russell
I guess I should not muddy the waters by mentioning the Texas-Irish Grind,
or the Texas-Longhorn Grind... Humm...
--
Better Woodturning and Finishing Through Chemistry...
Steven D. Russell
Eurowood Werks Woodturning Studio
Machinery, Tool and Product Testing for the Woodworking and Woodturning
Industry
The Woodlands, Texas
"Dinyar Chavda" <d.ch...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zBcV7.307458$W8.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
James Barley
I wonder if that's anything like the "Vancouver Island- O'neil" grind? 8^)
--
Regards.
James Barley.
http://members.shaw.ca/jamesbarley
"Steven D. Russell" <ben...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:9uIV7.2251$Kb2.55...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Superflute style gouge. Henry Taylor is the manufacturer who first and still
manufactures the Peter Child developed "Superflute" flute shape (and I believe are
the only ones licensed to use the "Superflute" nomenclature). However, such a
flute shape is not exclusive to Henry Taylor tools. Jerry Glaser uses what is the
same style of flute. I assume, but don't know for sure, that the Crown tool that
previously was licensed to use the Ellsworth name also used the Superflute style
flute. If anyone is unsure of the differences, go to the link to Peter Child's
site that I listed or go to the Cutting Edge Tools catalog or website where they
have a good picture showing the traditional deep fluted gouge side by side with a
Superflute. If you go to the Glaser section of their same website or catalog,
there is a picture that does a good job showing how the Glaser flute is of the
Superflute style.
As I pointed out, if you start with a Superflute "rounded V" style of flute, you
can establish any of the major swept back grinds on your tool (Ellsworth, Glaser,
Liam O'Neil Irish, and Mic O'Donnell Celtic), and even the traditional straight
across grind. As shown in the side by side comparison of the Henry Taylor marketed
(and presumably, licensed) Ellsworth and O'Neil grinds in the Cutting Edge tools
information, either can be properly established on a Superflute gouge. As can the
Glaser and O'Donnell Celtic grind. All of these grinds can also be established on
a Jerry Glaser bowl gouge because his flute shape is essentially that of a
Superflute.
However, as Richard correctly points out, the reverse is not true with respect to
the deep "U" shaped flute found on Sorby bowl gouges (and I believe, but can't say
from experience, applies to the Hamlet gouges). The U shaped flute will not allow
for the narrow tip that can be achieved with the Superflute style. Again, I would
refer those interested to the Peter Child webpage.
For my purposes, the Ellsworth and essentially identical Glaser grinds are the
ideal for a wide range of bowl turning techniques. That huge cut allowed by the
Irish grind requires a lot of horsepower and good technique or you can easily
achieve a horrendous catch and/or stall the motor. Still, when it is done
correctly, it can remove massive amounts of wood. For a detailed and truly
excellent description of of how an Ellsworth grind can be used and ground both
free hand and using jigs, I would strongly recommend viewing David's "Signature
Gouge Video." IMO, it is one of the best woodtrurning videos out there. Mic
O'Donnell has recently released a sharpening video show how to achieve his grind.
John Jordan displays his grind in the AAW recent video on sharpening.
I have both the Ellsworth fixed jig for achieving his grind, and the Tormek
Universal Gouge Jig that allows me to duplicate the Ellsworth or any other of the
"swept back" grinds. Using the Tormek jig (or going freehand), you can experiment
as you wish with the various grinds as long a you start with any Superflute style
gouge. This isn't all that sensible in that to change between them will greatly
decrease the life of the tool as a result of all the grinding, still, there is no
other reason why you can't conduct your own experiments to determine which grind
you like the best as long as you start with the Superflute style of flute. I've
done just that, comparing several different grinds on both 1/2 inch and 5/8 inch
Glaser bowl gouges, but again, for me, the Ellsworth/Glaser grind has proved to be
the best.
Now as to those "Texas" grinds, I know when I'm in over my head! :-)
Lyn
BTW, no particular endorsement of Cutting Edge Tools one way or another. It's just
that they have one of the best photo explanations of gouge styles and grinds that
is presently in print or on the web.
Arch
Fortiter,
Steve Tiedman
hard-earned dollars, all disappear the first time you put that tool to your own
grinder. Then it becomes the "Chavda Grind", or the "Tiedman Grind". Or the
"Preston", "Mangiameli", "Russel", "Barley", or "Arch" grind.
These signature grinds are put on the tool by the factory in an effort to
replace the nearly useless typical factory grind we all do away with when we
receive the tool in our shop. I'd pay attention to the quality of the tool
itself, not the grind that come on the tool from the factory. No matter how
hard you try, you will not maintain that same grind until the day the tool is a
little stub of steel in a wood handle a long way down the road from now.
A gouge by any other name is still a gouge. A keen edge, rub the bevel, watch
the shavings fly, regardless of whose signature is on it. Okay class, can we
all say "marketing"? Marketing! Very good.
Sorry for the sarcasm. But Happy Holidays to All!!
Steve.
--
Steve Tiedman
s...@mninter.net
Minnesota, USA
------------------
James Barley
--
Regards.
James Barley.
http://members.shaw.ca/jamesbarley
"Steve Tiedman" <s...@mninter.net> wrote in message
news:3C280A3A...@mninter.net...
Lyn J. Mangiameli
I entirely agree with you with respect to paying attention to the quality of the
tool itself, rather than the factory grind. However, there are a lot of us who do
believe that flute shape does make a difference (Ellsworth and Glaser to name
two). Not every flute shape will allow every sort of grind and every style of cut
to be made, as Richard Preston was pointing out (and as Ellsworth has long held).
If one were only free hand grinding, I would agree with you again. But modern
jigging systems will allow you to precisely repeat a grind. David's own jig
guarantees the geometries he has established as his grind. There are simple ways,
using a magic marker and moving the wheel by hand, to adjust both the Varigrind
and the Tormek Universal gouge jigs to achieve a geometry identical to that
established at the factory (be it good or bad) and to maintain identical
geometries with each following sharpening of the edge. To the extent these jigs
vary from precise is within the same tolerances as the manufacturers tolerances
when establishing the initial grind (and compared to Sorby, they will have closer
tolerances). For one example, I believe you can still buy the very jigging setup
Jerry Glaser uses to put on his "factory" grind. I believe it is Steve Worcester
whose website has an excellent description of how you can initially set up a
Varigrind jig to duplicate an existing grind. His method is essentially the same
magic marker method as Tormek suggests for setting up their universal gouge jig.
I know we all agree that a sharp edge is important (though there seems to be a
wide range of opinion as to what sharp is), but I certainly don't discount
geometry. I can use a Ellsworth/Glaser ground gouge in ways that I cannot use a
straight across or fingernail gouge of the same size and flute shape. (Ellsworth's
Signature Gouge Video provides an excellent discussion of these cuts.) There are
even differences in the cuts you can make between an Irish grind and an Ellsworth
grind. But I was also trying to point out, and I believe this is in agreement with
you, that the turner has a lot of control over what sort of grind they put on a
tool. That was the point I was trying to make to Dinyar in my initial reply. As
long as the flute shape is consistent with the type of grinds you wish to achieve,
the individual turner has a lot of control over what grind they wish to put on
their gouge.
And I'm a little confused. At one point you talk of the importance of paying
attention "to the quality of the tool itself," yet in the next paragraph you say "
a gouge by any other name is still a gouge." I know you appreciate the Crown PCM
tools, so it seems to me that you do recognize that some gouges are better than
others. I certainly do. My criteria for a gouge is based on the geometries of the
flute and the overall balance and vibration absorption of the tool. That's why I
buy Glaser. Frankly, in the end I think that flute shape is the most important
single criteria in a gouge because it is the hardest for an individual turner to
modify. I can polish flutes, I can establish (and maintain) grinds, I can sharpen
more often with "softer" steels, I can make my own provisions for achieving
balance and vibration absorption, but I can't do much to change flute shape.
What's so nice about the Glaser gouges is that they attend to all but one of these
things as they come from the factory (a well polished flute being the exception).
So where I think there is over marketing in woodturning as elsewhere, I don't
think there is actually much marketing of grind or flute shape. It seems to me
that the area where turning tool over marketing is most prominent is with regards
to "exotic" steels that have prolonged edge retention. Few of us have the
background to truly evaluate the differences in particle steel alloys. Jerry
Glaser is probably the one turner who is truly an expert in the composition and
characteristics of these steels. The more I understand the composition of alloys,
the more I appreciate the selections that Jerry has made.
Finally, I appreciate the trouble that David and Liam and O'Donnell and Peter
Childs and Jerry Glaser put into achieving superior geometries. They obviously are
not the only geometries desirable and are not appropriate to everyone's approach
to turning, but they have offered us a starting (and sometimes ending) point based
on a considerable amount of their personal effort, time and analysis. I don't mind
that they get their name associated with those grinds, and I believe that many are
willing to pay a little extra to have a tool sharpened to those specifications as
a starting point for setting their jigs or conducting their own experiments in
optimal tool grinds.
In the spirit of friendly and thoughtful debate,
Lyn
Darrell Feltmate
I watched the Ellsworth video on his gouge when a friend loaned it to
me. Nice video. Then I went and tried the cuts with my regular bowl
gouge with the long grind from my home made jig. They worked fine and
now I find out they can not be done without his signature gouge? Give me
a break. They can be done with the Oland tool. It is not a gouge at all.
I am not sure what it is but it is not a gouge.
God bless and safe turning
Darrell Feltmate
Truro, NS, Canada
Steve Tiedman
Okay, I'll concede the idea that if one is benefiting from the particular grind on the
tool as it arrives to them new, and they are able to continue the shape of that grind
with the various jigging systems on the market at their disposal, then fine. Off by
one iota when being sharpened by the end user and that specialty grind, by definition,
is gone. I'm a faithful believer in jigs, I use the Wolverine on my tools. But I
don't profess to use one specialty grind vs. another. I take that back- if anyone has
the AAW sharpening video, I've been sharpening my gouges somewhere along the lines
that John Jordan sharpens his, but I don't make any attempt to follow his suggestions
religiously. If I recall correctly from the last time I watched the tape, he is a bit
casual about following what he suggests in the video, and he openly admits it. Use
what works is the key.
My comment of "a gouge by any other name is still a gouge" meant just that. Whether
the gouge be made by Buck Brothers, Sorby, or Glaser, with a specialty grind or grind
that has to be refined by the end user, it's still a gouge to be bought and used by
you and I.
When you said "as long as the flute shape is consistent with the type of grinds you
wish to achieve," I don't feel that one is dependent on the other, at least not in any
kind of critical way. The ground bevel can be created in any form, a steep or shallow
angle, swept back or flat front, convex, flat, or concave on the wings, regardless of
the flute being shallow or deep, "U" shaped or "V" shaped, or the tool being of forged
or machined construction. Come to think of it, this last detail can play an important
roll, because the cross section of a forged gouge is consistent from the top edge of
one flute to the other, where on machined, or milled, gouges, the sides of the flute
taper into a thinner cross section as you approach the top of each side of the flute.
As to how the two (flute and bevel) come together and work with each other, that is up
to me, the end user.
Finally, and quite honestly, I can't help but wonder if these specialty grinds
developed by these big names were nothing more than dumb luck, pure coincidence. My
money says the first guy to sweep back the wings behind the front center of the
cutting edge did it to get the upper tips of the cutting edge out of the way to avoid
catching the tips on the wood as it spins. And then he happily discovered that in the
process of doing this, he expanded the possible uses of his tool. I don't *think*
there was a lot of science behind it. If there was, which I doubt, then I stand
corrected. I believe I heard Soren Berger (sorry if that credit should go to someone
else) at AAW last summer proclaim he prefers a standard straight across grind on his
gouges, and he did a good job of showing the crowd why in his demo. It made me
think. Anyone that turns long enough will eventually find the "sweet spot" that
really makes his particular tool sing, whether it be the grind style, the bevel angle,
flute shape, steel type, handle design, or brand name, and just as importantly, how
the turner uses his body and machine (lathe) to control the tool on the wood to come
to the end result.
Just like in baseball, we have to remember the basics. When using a gouge, ANY gouge,
keep it sharp, ride the bevel, and watch the shaving fly. I don't think there is a
book or video out there that will profess anything differently than this basic,
underlying idea. I'll manipulate a tool in the way I feel necessary because it works
for me, not because one of greater experience than I is getting paid to have his name
on the tool. But, that's just how I feel.
Whew, that felt good, thanks for the workout! Can you tell that I have never been one
to follow trends, and that I'm a natural born skeptic?
Hopefully my ramblings have come across clearly. I'd love to stay and write, and
refine this more, but my in-laws are waiting for us for their Christmas celebration.
And I'm hungry for the big spread.
Happy Holidays!!
Steve.
--
Steve Tiedman
s...@mninter.net
Minnesota, USA
------------------
Lyn J. Mangiameli
My reply interspersed with yours.
Steve Tiedman wrote:
> Hi Lyn,
>
> Okay, I'll concede the idea that if one is benefiting from the particular grind on the
> tool as it arrives to them new, and they are able to continue the shape of that grind
> with the various jigging systems on the market at their disposal, then fine. Off by
> one iota when being sharpened by the end user and that specialty grind, by definition,
> is gone.
Steve, that may sound good rhetorically, but it doesn't hold practically. That's like
saying that a Porsche with a dent in it is no longer a Porsche because the shape has
changed by an "iota." Jigs are quite capable of being set to maintain a grind within
functional tolerances, indeed, sometimes closer tolerances that the factory can provide.
Everything manufactured can only be manufactured and maintained within a range of
tolerances, the question is how broad those tolerances can be without significantly
affecting function. A signature grind does not cease to be a signature grind when, e.g.,
the bevel angle is 59.9 degrees instead of 60, any more than the Porsche ceases to be a
Porsche when it has a minor dent.
> I'm a faithful believer in jigs, I use the Wolverine on my tools. But I
> don't profess to use one specialty grind vs. another. I take that back- if anyone has
> the AAW sharpening video, I've been sharpening my gouges somewhere along the lines
> that John Jordan sharpens his, but I don't make any attempt to follow his suggestions
> religiously. If I recall correctly from the last time I watched the tape, he is a bit
> casual about following what he suggests in the video, and he openly admits it. Use
> what works is the key.
I believe we all agree (well maybe not Mike Darlow) that using what works is a good
starting place. It's just that some of us have reason to understand that certain
geometries work better than others. This is hardly unique to woodturning. Leonard Lee's
book on sharpening provides a quite scientific description of why some cutting geometries
are superior to others. As Darlow would contend (see, e.g., his "Fundamentals of
Woodturning"), and I concur, cutting wood is a matter of applied physics. There will be
optimum rake angles, cutting angles, mass behind the cutting edge, flute shapes, etc. for
a particular material being cut. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of physics.
This is, of course, a complicated matter in the real world when the characteristics of
wood vary so extremely, and the shapes we seek to achieve vary almost as much. Still,
certain specific sets of compromises in geometry (to cover the greatest range of
variation) will work better than others. Interestingly, a few sets of such compromises
are readily accepted when in comes to hand planes (for example: 25 degree bevel up blade
with 12 degree bedding angle for a low angle plane; and similar sets for a Standard Pitch
and York Pitch bench planes), but not so readily recognized by some turners. Some
turner's names may be more associated with certain geometries (sets of compromises) than
others, because they did the work to define and publicize them. I don't begrudge that, I
appreciate the time and experimentation they invested and shared to assist us all. Some
may choose to modify those geometries to suit their specific situation, but that does not
change the value of the original geometry as an exemplary overall compromise, nor negate
its value as a starting point from which to experiment.
How "forgiving" a geometry is with respect to achieving adequate results is a matter of
functional tolerances (i.e., the range of deviation from ideal before a specified
decline in performance is achieved). To my knowledge, this has been little explored in
the field of woodturning, but has been better established with respect to chisels, hand
planes, and both power and hand saws. One can easily find crosscut handsaws designed for
fine woodworking with 13, 14, or 15 teeth per inch (because a variation of 1 tooth per
inch is well within functional tolerances), but one does not find such saws with only 4
teeth per inch, because the function/performance of the saw would have dropped off
unacceptably. That is not to say that some woodworker might not be able to achieve a
straight cut with a 4 tpi saw, but that it would take an exceptional degree of skill and
patience to achieve an acceptable cut, and it is a testimony to their talent to overcome
the failings of poor tool, rather than a statement about the acceptability or
desirability of use of such a tool.
To continue with the handsaw analogy, certain sets of geometries may be selected for
different tasks; one set for crosscutting, another set for ripping, and yet another set
for fine detail work such as small dovetails. One doesn't then say that any geometry is
acceptable as long as it works, rather one recognizes that certain geometries are the
best compromise for a certain range of tasks. This seems readily acceptable with regards
to the general difference in flute shape and geometry between spindle and bowl gouges,
and I would suggest that persons such as Ellsworth and Glaser and Child and Darlow have
shown the such distinctions can be further refined specifically with respect to bowl
gouges.
> My comment of "a gouge by any other name is still a gouge" meant just that. Whether
> the gouge be made by Buck Brothers, Sorby, or Glaser, with a specialty grind or grind
> that has to be refined by the end user, it's still a gouge to be bought and used by
> you and I.
Then I must say that such a statement is essentially meaningless. It is equivalent to
suggesting that all automobiles are comparable because they exist to be bought and used
as means of conveyance. A Porsche is not a Jeep and vice versa within regards to the
functional situations for which each was designed and can accommodate. A Porsche will do
poorly in deep snow or over rocks, the Jeep will do poorly at 100 mph. You cannot take
an automobile and make it into something for which it's basic design is unsuited for
(i.e, you cannot simply place a set of mud tires on a Porsche and have it suitable to go
off-road because it is limited by it's ground clearance and approach angles; similarly,
you cannot simply put a turbocharger on a Jeep and have it function well at 100 mph
because of its lack of aerodynamics). While in my initial reply to Dinyar I conveyed
that multiple swept back geometries could be applied to some types of gouges (i.e.
Superflute style), I do not accept that all gouges are comparable any more than all
automobiles are comparable. The performance of a gouge is determined by more than just
the grind on the bevel. To quote from Peter Child "differences in the shapes and the
quality of the steel used in the different bowl gouges I used were very noticeable."
> When you said "as long as the flute shape is consistent with the type of grinds you
> wish to achieve," I don't feel that one is dependent on the other, at least not in any
> kind of critical way.
Obviously you are free to have your opinion, but physics and some very knowledgeable tool
designers would differ.
> The ground bevel can be created in any form, a steep or shallow
> angle, swept back or flat front, convex, flat, or concave on the wings, regardless of
> the flute being shallow or deep, "U" shaped or "V" shaped, or the tool being of forged
> or machined construction.
Steve, of course you can attempt to grind a bevel any way that you want, but that doesn't
mean that it will function optimally. The shape of the flute will contribute to the
tool's performance and capabilities for a specific type of grind. Here's what Peter Child
(the originator of the Superflute shape) states discussing a Superflute style gouge that
is sharpened straight across: "The idea is that the large radius at the side of the flute
cuts like a large gouge (say a 1/2" gouge) but if you twist it a little and cut with the
small radius at the the bottom of the flute you get the same cut as you would with a
small gouge (say a 1/4" gouge). As the large radius blends gradually into the small
radius you can, at will, vary the radius of that bit of the edge which is in contact with
the wood. You have more control over the cutting than you would have with a traditional
gouge and you can achieve a higher standard of finish. The small radius at the bottom of
the flute stabilizes a full cut too. This makes the gouge easier to control when
hollowing a bowl and easier to control at the difficult entry point at the edge of the
bowl where the bevel is initially rubbing on fresh air." Believe those words as you like,
but Peter and his father are pretty respected tool designers.
> Come to think of it, this last detail can play an important
> roll, because the cross section of a forged gouge is consistent from the top edge of
> one flute to the other, where on machined, or milled, gouges, the sides of the flute
> taper into a thinner cross section as you approach the top of each side of the flute.
> As to how the two (flute and bevel) come together and work with each other, that is up
> to me, the end user.
No Steve, you are always constrained by those geometries you cannot practically change,
and on a gouge, the flute is generally impractical to modify. You cannot make the line of
the cutting edge change from round to V or vice versa, no matter how you choose to grind
the bevel of the tool. A look at the diagrams Jerry Glaser drew in his article on shaping
and sharpening for Woodworker West may help one visualize this. Even if you totally
misgrind the tool, the cutting edge will always follow the shape of the flute as it is
the flute which forms the back of the edge.
All bowl gouges, by design, are intended to be as strong as reasonably possible to deal
with the greater overhangs often required in faceplate turning. Both the U and V flute
shapes are strong, but the V shaped Superflute style is the stronger. It simply results
in more steel retained in the sidewalls behind the grind, and more mass to support the
ground portion. This is one of the reasons David Ellsworth chooses the Superflute for his
own gouges, and keep in mind that David developed these initially to achieve the best
performing gouge for his own use.
>
> Finally, and quite honestly, I can't help but wonder if these specialty grinds
> developed by these big names were nothing more than dumb luck, pure coincidence.
Perhaps, but you have to have the brains and skill to recognize the improvement and to
correctly attribute the improvement to the cause.
> My money says the first guy to sweep back the wings behind the front center of the
> cutting edge did it to get the upper tips of the cutting edge out of the way to avoid
> catching the tips on the wood as it spins. And then he happily discovered that in the
> process of doing this, he expanded the possible uses of his tool. I don't *think*
> there was a lot of science behind it. If there was, which I doubt, then I stand
> corrected.
There may or may not have been a directed scientific inquiry leading to the discovery (as
often happens in "real" science as well), but that doesn't mean that the physics of
cutting doesn't determine the increased performance discovered. Certainly David is quite
open about the fact that he got the idea for swept back wings from others (I believe
Liam), but it was David's disciplined inquiry that helped him define the optimal
geometries for his turning. (As an example of the type of things he learned: "Be careful
not to develop high "wings" to the left and right of the end of the tip. These will be
sharper than the rest of the edge and will cause the gouge to grab or 'bite' the wood.")
It was then David who more than anyone else, made a point of sharing his findings. I
don't know David personally, but I have never perceived him as going out of his way to
make money from his tool development, even though he has put considerable time and energy
into it. Anyone who watches his Signature Gouge video tape is provided with all the
information necessary to make their own Signature grind jig (rather than buy it), and can
learn how to put his grind on any 5/8 inch Superflute gouge they may have. There is not a
tool or jig that David offers that he won't freely tell you how to make for yourself.
> I believe I heard Soren Berger (sorry if that credit should go to someone
> else) at AAW last summer proclaim he prefers a standard straight across grind on his
> gouges, and he did a good job of showing the crowd why in his demo.
The last time you presented the anecdote you also credited Soren, so it probably is.
> It made me
> think. Anyone that turns long enough will eventually find the "sweet spot" that
> really makes his particular tool sing, whether it be the grind style, the bevel angle,
> flute shape, steel type, handle design, or brand name, and just as importantly, how
> the turner uses his body and machine (lathe) to control the tool on the wood to come
> to the end result.
It would be so nice if that was really true, but I doubt that it really applies to many.
Just look to this NG for all the times we advise others to learn from a turner who
already knows, or to at least watch a video. And note all the times people report taking
some instruction and finally learning how to do perform something more correctly or more
efficiently than they had achieved in many prior years of attempts. On the other hand,
there are a few tools so poorly designed that the "sweet spot" will be so narrow as to be
of very limited value.
>
> Just like in baseball, we have to remember the basics. When using a gouge, ANY gouge,
> keep it sharp, ride the bevel, and watch the shaving fly. I don't think there is a
> book or video out there that will profess anything differently than this basic,
> underlying idea.
I agree with keep it sharp, but actually David does a very good job showing how to use
his gouge to make cuts without riding the bevel. a great deal of the initial bowl cuts I
make are without riding the bevel. Yes, one needs to know how to ride the bevel, but
David was one of the first to teach us how to make successful cuts without doing so (and
for me, in a way that often reduces fatigue).
> I'll manipulate a tool in the way I feel necessary because it works
> for me, not because one of greater experience than I is getting paid to have his name
> on the tool. But, that's just how I feel.
You really seem hung up on this name thing. Peter Child doesn't put his name on the
Superflute design, indeed, it was Henry Taylor that even came up with that name. Jerry
Glaser's name is associated with his turning tools, but Jerry's tools are some of the
most "under marketed" turning tools out there (not to mention that he is incredibly
generous with his knowledge). And as I mention above and in my reply to Dinyar, David
makes the information and means very accessible to turners to create his "signature"
geometries without purchasing the Signature Gouge. Tangentially, Key and Klien are more
vulnerable to this criticism, as even though their names are just as highly touted by
Henry Taylor, it would be difficult to duplicate some of the tools with Key's or Klien's
name on them.
>
> Whew, that felt good, thanks for the workout! Can you tell that I have never been one
> to follow trends, and that I'm a natural born skeptic?
I think many of us are generally skeptical, if for no other reason than many woodturners
are older and older folks tend to become more skeptical, partially because we have seen
trends come and go. I'm all for critique and analysis and questioning of "received
wisdom," but one also needs to have a means to objectively evaluate the claims. Sometimes
authorities are considered authoritative because they're right. I've tried to demonstrate
why my statements aren't just opinions but reflect the knowledge of others who have
credibility. It's very easy to say (and I mean this generically) to do whatever works for
you, but unless one is open to other evidence, one can be stuck with an inefficient but
adequate method when a far superior one is just waiting to be learned.
And you're welcome for the workout, it's all in the way of a reasoned discussion amongst
friends. Hope your Christmas spread is as good as you imagine and doesn't result in any
permanent "spread."
Lyn
Steve Tiedman
Lyn, imagine Dinyar sitting in front of his screen reading this volley, thinking, "Holy s***,
these two guys must want to strangle each other." Well, Dinyar, Lyn and I have, on more than
one occasion, been accused of being separated at birth, and most times accused by each
other! Imagine the two of us trying to have this conversation at that *other* woodworking
newsgroup. Boy-oh-boy, would we catch hell. Then someone would ask, "Well, how come Norm
does it this way?" I love this group!
Not to drag this on, but more in an effort to grab that "last word" (sorry, Lyn, sibling
rivalry), I'm perusing my newest book to the collection, "Bert Marsh, Woodturner". Page 93,
the section titled "Your Own Choice". I just ran across this segment this evening for the
first time and I just about fell off the toi--, er, the chair. (HE-HE!!) Anyway--
"Turning, like any other method of cutting wood, requires sharp tools, but many people
worry too much about such details as the angle of the bevel and the sweep of the gouge. In
my experience, these are not critical. The correct angle of the bevel is whatever suits you,
just so long as you keep it rubbing on the wood while you are working. Do not be afraid to
adjust your tools to your own way of working and to the pieces you are making.
(two paragraphs later) "One of the golden rules of turning is that you keep the bevel of
your gouge rubbing on the wood when you are cutting with it. However, when you become
competent, you realize (and I do realize, and practice this myself as needed- Steve T.) that
there are times when the bevel of the gouge cannot rub against the workpiece- for example,
when the shape of the bowl is such that you need to turn a sharp corner when you reach the
bottom." And so on...
I wonder if I could get Bert to claim me as one of his own. I better talk to my own parents,
first.
Jumping topics entirely, and maintaining levity, and maybe this should even be a brand new
thread- I don't own any "V" shape flute gouges, but have used them in the shop of a friend on
several occasion. (They are good tools, folks, don't get me wrong.) Do you find, depending
especially if the wood is still retaining a higher level of moisture, that the flute can
become clogged with shavings, or at a minimum having more difficulty in clearing the shaving
naturally in the course of cutting? I know the brand of tool it was, but that is not
important at this time.
I'm writing this while feeling only a *little bit* bloated after the feast at the in-law's
place.
You're a good man, Lyn. Keep it up. By the way, what do I have when I replace that dented
Porsche fender with a modified Jeep fender? And what did you mean with that "older folks
tend to become more skeptical" dig?! (My birthday is in two weeks.) Oh, never mind.
Your friend,
"Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote:
> (HUGE CHOPPING of old stuff)
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Yes, it has been a fine discussion and it helps me to refine my own thoughts and I hope provides
a great basis to gain information and develop perspective for those who have been interested.
Ah, Dinyar is one I feel assured is well equiped to wade through our verbiage, and had he
desired, perhaps surpassed us at it. Matter of fact, he is the only one of the three of us that
has sat at master Ellsworth's feet.
I think you did want to strangle me over the trouble I gave you that time on the other group
about the Vicmark; it really was a day I was in my COC mode. That thing about separated at birth
must be true, except that you had an addtional 18 years or so of gestation---so now that
explains you :-)
Part of the contribution that David has presented us is an understanding of how we can use (at
least) his gouge to make certain cuts without riding the bevel. His Signature Gouge video is an
excellent way to see him describe and demonstrate this. All those who speak of rubbing the bevel
are of course correct for the traditional and still standard turning tool techniques, it's just
that David shows how you can use his style of gouge to add nontraditional, but highly effective,
techniques to your repertoire--some of which do not require bevel rubbing. One doesn't need to
own or intend to purchase one of his signature gouges to really appreciate this video.
You don't own any V shaped gouges, tsk tsk. I do a little better in that a have one 3/8 Sorby
gouge and one 3/8 Henry Taylor Superflute (in M4 none the less). So I can compare, but must
confess that all my bowl turning is really done with Glaser Superflute style gouges on which I
slavishly duplicate his grind which in turn duplicates the Ellsworth grind.
I can't say that I have ever had the trouble you describe with shaving clearance using a V
shaped gouge. It must be because I use all those unpolished Glaser flutes. Or maybe it's because
I'm so aggressive that I'm removing chopsticks instead of shavings.:-)
In a few weeks I'm going to try out a replacable tip gouge. That should allow me to compare a
couple of different flutes and grinds on essentially the same tool. I'll report back and you can
critique.
I don't know about the replacement fender on the Porshe, but your comment reminds me of the time
I rolled my CJ-7. I called my wife to tell her and said: "You know, it's really not in bad shape
for having rolled. I think all it needs is a couple of new fenders, a hood, a new windshield,
and maybe a door or two, but it's basically pretty unscathed." Really. Never rolled a Porsche,
but did help my (later to be) wife punch her 911 into the side of a mountain a long time ago.
Crumpled the hood and damn near ripped the entire front fender off. We then proceeded to drive
it from Utah to San Francisco, and then back to Omaha where we lived at the time. It would
begin shimmying at around 70, but, just like a lathe, would smooth out again around 100.
They're just wonderful cars.
Ah, youngster, I'm just jealous (but right). [R,D & C!]
Happy birthday in advance!
Lyn
Steve Tiedman
> Hi Steve,
> Yes, it has been a fine discussion (CHOP)
Yes, it has.
> Happy birthday in advance!
Thank you! 33 on January 9. So young, so full of piss and vinegar. I'm so happy I discovered all
of this woodturning stuff early in life instead of on week 2 of retirement. This world of turning
is more fun than a guy should be allowed to have. Certainly more fun than climbing out of that
Porsche after it came to a halt up against the wall!
> Lyn
3:25 AM, I'm going to bed. Just finished writing my review of the Jet mini lathe retrofit bed
extention. I'm sending it to Jet first to see if they have comments they would like to add. My
findings will not be swayed or changed by how they repley to me, but I will provide their comments
along with my treatise when I publish it to this newsgroup in the coming days. I feel like Steven
D. Sleep?! Who needs sleep?
G'nite.
John Jordan
I've got to add a couple of points. There aren't really many "bad" bowl
gouges, but different ones, that may suit us based on cost, shape,
performance (perceived or otherwise). The "Ellsworth", "Irish", "O'Neill"
etc. grinds are simply all variations of the "side grind", as is the grind
I use -I will make no effort to attribute it to anyone :-) . The swept back
sides give a lot of cutting edge(s) and cutting options, particularly suited
for shear cutting/leveling and peeling cuts on end grain. The geometry of my
gouge never changes, and if I grind most any deep fluted bowl gouge with the
same geometry, it will perform pretty much the same. Yes, the smaller
radius bottoms such as in the v-flutes or the super flute makes a smaller
tip which many of us do find preferable. I have used literally thousands of
gouges due to the number of students I've had, and most work quite well when
shaped and sharpened. The biggest problem I see in gouges is a misshapen
flute, that is one that is not v or u shaped, but wavers or has a lump or
sudden direction change or the flute is too large -VERY difficult to keep a
proper shape along the long edge. An example is the Henry Taylor Superflute
you talked about. A great gouge, very nicely shaped, but the next smaller
gouge (3/8) they made was virtually useless as the flute was MUCH too large,
and shaping it is very hard to do, and there are probably thousands of these
around. Why not just scale down the Superflute? Beats me. Be aware this
changes from batch to batch. I've had one of the English tool companies
that was getting into the turning tool business ask me which gouges I
thought they should copy. There's way less thought put into this stuff by
many (not all) tool makers than one might think. I've got a batch of Oneway
gouges here that the flute is not ground right down the center, which again
makes it hard to grind. They are supposed to be gouges of my design, but
over the years the flute shape changed, and changed, and changed. :-)
That's true of many, particularly the ones that are ground (most). The
wheels are often free hand dressed, the setup changes from batch to batch
etc.
My first priority if I had to pick a gouge out of an assortment since they
are not always consistent,would be a proportional, reasonably well
ground/machined flute. Next would be the flute shape, small radius v or u
shape. A side grind with the geometry I use would work on any of them and
while they might require minor presentation adjustments, it wouldn't make a
large difference. But why not have what we prefer eh? :-)
FWIW, Jerry Glaser's v shaped tools came about as a result of trying to make
it easier for the average turner to maintain a side grind-grind one side
flat against the wheel, then the other, then a little radius on the end.
Easy right? This was pre jig days. I don't think it helped with
shaping/sharpening much, but it made that nice little radius in the bottom
that we both like so much. :-) I've still got a couple of the pre v shapes
and they are much larger in the bottom radius.
I've really gone on longer than I meant to-this comes a lot harder to me
than it does to Lyn. :-) I meant to point out to Steve that I didn't quite
say "whatever works" in the sharpening video. I try to point out that by
understanding the tool one then understands how to change/adjust if need be.
There is more to it than simply insuring the bevel rubs. In order for a tool
to work well, there must be a sharpness angle that is acute enough to
provide a relatively efficient cut. A gouge that is ground to fit around the
bottom of deeper or semi closed bowls sucks as good cuts go. The blunt angle
that allows the bevel to rub in that case is very inefficient as a cutting
edge. In my experience, many, many turners are doing most of their work with
this very type of short, blunt beveled tool when it should really be
reserved for those occasions when it is needed. If your tool bounces, jumps
etc. think about lengthening the bevel. It's a compromise for sure, but one
should aim for a reasonably long(efficient) bevel (cutting angle) that will
allow the tool to fit where you need it to fit most of the time. Use a
second tool when needed. Consistency counts, and I suggest that one's main
gouge should not change, at least not day to day. FWIW, I do 99.5% of my
turning with a single gouge. But, I don't make a lot of bowls which can
sometimes call for more.
I hope that helps a bit, but I'm not sure that it does!
Happy Holidays to All,
John Jordan
--
www.stubbylathe.com
Lyn J. Mangiameli <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C297E3B...@earthlink.net...
Lyn J. Mangiameli
You are just a treasure. We are all so lucky that you spend time with us.
I really agree with 95% of what you said, particularly about how factory
tolerances are much wider than most ever imagine (and how frustrating this must
be with a design attributed to you). This is particularly dismaying with
regards to something like flute shape that is so extremely difficulty for most
of us to change substantially after the fact. You have also explained to me why
I have never developed any fondness for my 3/8 HT Superflute--I just thought it
was because it wasn't a Glaser. :-). One of the things that I really like about
the Tormek Universal Gouge Jig is that once correctly set, it gives me an
identical grind on all of the Glaser bowl gouges regardless of size. This makes
it quite comfortable to go up and down in scale while still working with the
same exact grind. (BTW, did you ever get that Tormek out of the box?)
Appreciatively,
Lyn
John Jordan
The Tormek will be out of the box any day now! As far as the flute
shape/proportion goes, just look at the end view of the gouge and try to see
just the diameter and the flute shape, as if it was ground square on the
end. Is the shape of the flute symmetrical, and without lumps or shape
changes? In other words a smooth u or v shape? Is it proportional? One
example is a tiny flute, which is somewhat common in some of the OZ and New
Zealand gouges-it makes a strong tool, but the bevel is about a mile wide
(that can be overcome by a second, longer bevel). If the flute is too large,
the metal surrounding the flute, again viewed end on, will be thin in spots
and these spots will be ground through and yield a dip on the long edge.
Best,
John Jordan
--
www.stubbylathe.com
Lyn J. Mangiameli <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C2A7C29...@earthlink.net...
Steve Tiedman
I hope you don't feel I was misrepresenting anything you have professed, either
here or in your contribution to the sharpening video. My impression of you on
that tape was to not sweat these details too much, don't let it overwhelm you
while trying to get the bigger job of turning a chunk of wood completed. I
admit, it has been a while since watching that great tape, but I remember the
relaxed attitude you took in explaining your point of view of the topic of
sharpening, that you don't seem to be high strung when it comes to sharpening,
and that is one of the things I appreciated most from that tape. I guess I'll
go pop it in the VCR again this week, just for kicks. Maybe after watching it
again I'll pick up something I glossed by last time.
By the way, was that you or Alan Lacer that said each of us owns a slow speed
grinder even if we don't know it- referring to sharpening a tool while the
grinder slows down after turning off the power switch. That was good. That was
Alan, right? I gotta go watch that tape again.
Thanks,
Steve.
--
Steve Tiedman
s...@mninter.net
Minnesota, USA
------------------
John Jordan wrote:
> Lyn (& Steve),
>
> (chop)
Lyn J. Mangiameli
That is great information. I don't think I've ever seen someone lay it out like
that before. Obviously it's even more valuable with some brands than others.
Oh, and isn't that what you said about the Tormek several months ago? :-)
Kevin & Theresa Miller
>
> John,
> That is great information. I don't think I've ever seen someone lay it out like
> that before. Obviously it's even more valuable with some brands than others.
>
> Oh, and isn't that what you said about the Tormek several months ago? :-)
There's not much that I can add to John's explanation, but one thing that I
might mention is the flute should be polished. While looking over some
tools several years back, Soren Berger pointed out to a couple of us how
rough a couple of the gouges were in the flute. Even if you get a good
grind on them, you essentially have a serrated edge due to the roughness of
the surface. Best bet is to get a tool with a cleanly milled and polished
flute. One can also buff the inside flute on a buffing wheel to clean up
the roughness if its present...
...Kevin
--
Kevin & Theresa Miller
Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Lyn J. Mangiameli
It is always of interest to me that what is such common practice in one area of
woodworking is often neglected in another. No serious hand tool user would think a
chisel or hand plane blade could be made adequately sharp unless the back were
flattened and polished to a level at least equal to the bevel. Yet, little is said
about this in woodturning, though there are exceptions such as Chris Stott. Perhaps
it has been because so many gouge bevels are established and maintained on an 80 or
100 grit grinding wheel. In such case, the argument for a polished flute becomes
moot with respect to sharpness. But for those who maintain their gouges with a
Tormek or follow up a rough grind with a hone, the polished flute makes a
significant difference in edge retention as well as sharpness.
Another thing that many a hand tool user has but nary a woodturner, is a 5x or 6x
magnifier to examine the cutting edge. Not that one would need to use it often, but
it is very instructive to occasionally examine your tool's edge before sharpening,
and then after sharpening. It can tell you much about the state of the edge when you
need to sharpen again, how effective your sharpening has been, and makes it easier
to evaluate edge retention visually.
Perhaps it is because I have some Sorbys with well polished flutes but mediocre
performance and a lot of Glasers with rough flutes but great performance, but I
don't consider the polish of the flute when I decide on a tool, bowl gouge or
otherwise. Smoothing and polishing a face or flute can be rather easy work
(afterall, with a gouge you only need to polish the area directly behind the cutting
edge), where some of the defects that John raised are almost (and sometime outright)
impossible to rectify.
Lyn
Dinyar Chavda
some bucks
by buying a gouge other than David's! You're right, Lyn, I do feel like the
guy who makes a provocative remark, and then goes to a corner and chews on a
toothpick, remembering to duck every once in a while as the bar gets
demolished!
Seriously, though, I think that that was some discussion, and I tip my
hat(s?) to both Lyn and Steve. I thought I was asking a fairly simple
question, and ended up getting an education that I had not expected, not the
least of which is that I now the difference between a deep-fluted gouge and
a Superflute (but, aha, what is a Masterflute gouge-is that just a marketing
gimmick by Hamlet, Steve?) In many ways, reading this thread was akin to
reading a good review of computers or any other technology in a
magazine--you
may not agree with the final conclusions, but you sure learn about several
criteria that you had never considered before.
I think that this discussion points out two facts. One, that we are truly
fortunate in this NG to have people like Steve and Lyn (among others) who
are willing to take a considerable amount of time to further the craft-take
a bow, guys. Secondly, it shows the incredible power of the Internet. Can
you imagine my trying to get this question answered even 5 years ago (yes,
Steve, there was a time before there was the Internet. Heck, there was a
time before PCs. 33 years old, indeed! Rub it fella and really make me feel
old.)
I have just one suggestion to make, Lyn, and that is to drop the car
analogies. I know you live in a car-centric state, and so you know Porches,
and CJ 7s and 911s. However, you have to remember that many of us live in
places where a car is just a means of transportation, and we have no idea
what you are talking about. After all, I live near Philly, where, when you
say "Boxster", we think you are referring to Rocky Balboa. :-)
Dinyar
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Dinyar Chavda wrote:
> <snip>
> However, you have to remember that many of us live in
> places where a car is just a means of transportation,
How very sad.
Lyn
Steve Tiedman
Dinyar Chavda wrote:
> Gosh, Steve and Lyn, all I wanted to do was to try to see if I could save
> some bucks
> by buying a gouge other than David's! You're right, Lyn, I do feel like the
> guy who makes a provocative remark, and then goes to a corner and chews on a
> toothpick, remembering to duck every once in a while as the bar gets
> demolished!
You just have to love this stuff, don't you? I love that analogy you give!
> Seriously, though, I think that that was some discussion, and I tip my
> hat(s?) to both Lyn and Steve.
On behalf of both of us, thank you for asking the question, or was that lighting
the match? We both try the best we can, and if something good comes out of it
all, then it was all worth it. And it sounds like that happened.
> I thought I was asking a fairly simple
> question, and ended up getting an education that I had not expected, not the
> least of which is that I now the difference between a deep-fluted gouge and
> a Superflute (but, aha, what is a Masterflute gouge-is that just a marketing
> gimmick by Hamlet, Steve?)
Uh, it's, uh, never mind.
> In many ways, reading this thread was akin to
> reading a good review of computers or any other technology in a
> magazine--you
> may not agree with the final conclusions, but you sure learn about several
> criteria that you had never considered before.
THAT is for sure.
> I think that this discussion points out two facts. One, that we are truly
> fortunate in this NG to have people like Steve and Lyn (among others) who
> are willing to take a considerable amount of time to further the craft-take
> a bow, guys.
Again, thank you for the kind words.
> Secondly, it shows the incredible power of the Internet. Can
> you imagine my trying to get this question answered even 5 years ago (yes,
> Steve, there was a time before there was the Internet. Heck, there was a
> time before PCs. 33 years old, indeed! Rub it fella and really make me feel
> old.)
I think I was given a Commadore 64 (or something like that) when I was just a
wee one, maybe 10 or 11. Hook it up to the TV, memory on cassette tapes... And
I remember playing pong. And I had the non-powered version, the original
version, of Battleship. Bicycles and building tree forts is where is was at for
me as a kid.
> I have just one suggestion to make, Lyn, and that is to drop the car
> analogies. I know you live in a car-centric state, and so you know Porches,
> and CJ 7s and 911s. However, you have to remember that many of us live in
> places where a car is just a means of transportation, and we have no idea
> what you are talking about. After all, I live near Philly, where, when you
> say "Boxster", we think you are referring to Rocky Balboa. :-)
We don't worry too much about cars in Minnesota due to the fact they rust out
before you can even enjoy them. Porsche's go up on blocks at this time of year,
and we haven't seen an actual Jeep "CJ" around these parts in the better part of
a decade. They all rusted out long ago.
> Dinyar
Take care,
Dinyar Chavda
Reminds me of when I lived in LA, and drove a beat-up old Opel 1900--great
car, except that the air-conditioner compressor would vibrate, the bolt
holding it would get loose, and it would fall off. It would still be held
to the car by the belt, however, it would puncture a hole in the oil-filter
below it, and I'd find out I was out of oil when the oil-light came on!
Anyway, my neighbor (born and bred in LA) once said, "You are what you
drive!" "What does that make me?" I asked, pointing to my car. "I'd rather
not say", she responded.
Dinyar
"Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C2BF958...@earthlink.net...
Lyn J. Mangiameli
There are times when no reply can improve on what came before. I shall accept
this as one of those times. :-)
Lyn
Richard Preston
I've heard of that. It's good you mentioned it.
Combination of Beer and Tequila for the turner, and the application of asphalt
to the gouge as it is dragged behind the pickup truck.
The real benefit to the grind can only be achieved by the meandering of the
vehicle over and back the center line of the highway. A straight-line drive
will not get the bevel right.
To correctly achieve the Longhorn portion of the grind, the angle of the gouge
to the asphalt is determined by using the knuckles as a jig, dragging them
along the asphalt as usual.
As usual, your comments are illuminating.
Regards,
Richard
>Hello,
>
>I guess I should not muddy the waters by mentioning the Texas-Irish Grind,
>or the Texas-Longhorn Grind... Humm...
>--
>Better Woodturning and Finishing Through Chemistry...
>
>Steven D. Russell
Richard Preston
Thank you for mentioning my grind and yet not attaching any derogatory comments
as to its result!
Regards,
Richard Preston
Steve Tiedman
shape to create out of all of them!!
Happy New Year!
Steve.
--
Steve Tiedman
s...@mninter.net
Minnesota, USA
------------------
Arch
many dollars or euros. My grind is on the tang. A limited number of
franchises are still available.
Happy 'big blue' New Year, Arch
Fortiter,
Steve Tiedman
right back to the Preston, and I'm stickin' with it!! Go Richard!!
Take care,
Steve.
--
Steve Tiedman
s...@mninter.net
Minnesota, USA
------------------
Steve Tiedman
donschn...@gmail.com
> I need to replace my Ellsworth gouge. In addition to the Signature gouge, I
> have found others (cheaper) in various catalogs. Is there a big difference
> between the Irish (Celtic) Grind and the Ellsworth Signature gouge? And
> what is a Cut-Back grind?
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> Dinyar
