Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 123
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    D.W.

    There are many reasons why the saw you mentioned might have lost it's tension, but I would suggest that using any mechanical means (and chemical or electrolysis methods) to remove rust on a handsaw is a no no. The simple fact that you generated heat is an indicator of something awry, although it would have to be extreme to be a real problem. Really, to my mind, there is only one way and it is tiring, dirty and tedious: W & D in conjunction with a lubricant.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    That popping while warm is the key - it's been over tensioned at some point. Try re-tempering to about 725 oF followed by gentle hammering in the canned area of the blade. You can find it by flexing to one side and holding a straight edge across the blade. You'll see it as a bulge or concavity at some point down the blade that roughly corresponds to the point at which it's most likely to flex badly in use.
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  4. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D.W. View Post
    ......As far as the microscopes go, I'm satisfied with the scope that I have for my needs (which is looking at razor edges), but I notice that it has an extremely short focal range. If metal has pitting on it, the pits will be out of focus while the surface is not. Even significant sharpening scratches are blurry at the top or the bottom. I think most people might find a problem with it if they wanted to do more than check perfectly flat surfaces without much depth variation. If mine's $430, I'm not sure how much money you have to spend to be able to get a scope that has better focusing across minor depth variations.......
    D.W., the higher the magnification, the smaller the depth of field - it's a simple fact of physics. When using the highest power on a regular microscope, you have to constantly focus up & down a bit to 'see through' a 5micron section. Good quality optics and good lighting will improve resolution, but microscopes have fixed apertures, so you cannot do anything to change DOF for a given scope/lens combination. If you want good DOF at high magnification, you need a scanning electron microscope, they have ~zero aperture. They cost a bit more than $450, though.....

    Cheers,
    IW

  5. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,075

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanW View Post
    D.W., the higher the magnification, the smaller the depth of field - it's a simple fact of physics. When using the highest power on a regular microscope, you have to constantly focus up & down a bit to 'see through' a 5micron section. Good quality optics and good lighting will improve resolution, but microscopes have fixed apertures, so you cannot do anything to change DOF for a given scope/lens combination. If you want good DOF at high magnification, you need a scanning electron microscope, they have ~zero aperture. They cost a bit more than $450, though.....

    Cheers,
    I agree completely, Ian. Image for image, though, I've tried to recreate some of the pictures that someone with a $3K microscope got, and mine won't get them. The situation just has to be more ideal with lighting and focus.

    that said, the $430 scope that I got is really nice for what it is. When something is in focus, it's clear. The tables on it adjust really smoothly and it's got microadjust for height (which is a necessity above 100x). I don't know what Rob's needs are. If they are like mine, then my type will be fine. The bigger issue is getting irregular items under the scope to be seen at all. Even chisel bevels require a setup where the handle of the chisel is below the base of the scope (propping up the base) and something has to be set to stop the handle because just laying it against the table will allow it to slide. Same thing for knife bevels, etc, where the item doesn't automatically sit with the part to be viewed (the edge on a knife) at 90 degrees too the tube.

  6. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,075

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushmiller View Post
    D.W.

    There are many reasons why the saw you mentioned might have lost it's tension, but I would suggest that using any mechanical means (and chemical or electrolysis methods) to remove rust on a handsaw is a no no. The simple fact that you generated heat is an indicator of something awry, although it would have to be extreme to be a real problem. Really, to my mind, there is only one way and it is tiring, dirty and tedious: W & D in conjunction with a lubricant.

    Regards
    Paul
    All kinds of stuff gets crossed up in these discussions. A deburring wheel generates heat just by its use, but not like the kind of heat you'd think of with a chisel edge on a grinder. It's more of a slow friction. In the case of the saw that I cleaned up, I just ground too much of the surface off on each side because my goal at the outset was to remove metal until the surface was completely uniform. Rust first, and then any remaining irregularities. I believe that most of the tension is right on the metal surface or close to it, and if you abrade much of that off, you'll have a floppy saw.

    The other saw that I got (the rip saw that I haven't yet solved), who knows. Someone else did that, as opposed to me starting with a nice stiff saw and then working the tension right out of it. Safe to say, though, if the saw got hot enough to not touch or show any tempering colors, I'd have seen it, but it never got close to that (and probably not close to the boiling water temperature that George suggests for removing the wave from a saw without hammering).

    All of this is why I'd suggest most people spend the extra money to find a good clean saw with a bright plate and no marks. The saw that I rehammered is quite nice now, but there's really no reward for all of that effort. It would've worked as well or nearly as well with the rust crust left on it. if it's rough, just sanding the roughness off is fine.

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D.W. View Post

    All of this is why I'd suggest most people spend the extra money to find a good clean saw with a bright plate and no marks. .
    D.W.

    That is certainly the easiest way and possibly the best too and for a user saw the quickest. No argument there.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  8. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Ian

    A quick snap shot from this morning:

    Fully restored and sharpened Disston No.7 (Est. $150)

    rip for Ian 28inch No.7.jpg

    Atkins 400. As is: (Est. $90)

    rip for ian Atkins 400 26 inch.jpg

    Atkins No.53 Fully restored and sharpened (Est. $220)
    rip for ian Atkins No.53 26 inch.jpg

    Disston No.112. As is (Est $75)

    rip for Ian No.112 28 inch.jpg

    Simonds No.371 as is: (Est $35)
    Rip for Ian Simonds 371.jpg

    Disston D-8 Thumbhole. As is (Est $75)

    Rip for Ian 28 inch D8.jpg

    This is just a small selection and they are all auctions which is why I have estimated what I think they will go for, but I could be a mile out in either direction. As is means that it is not sharpened and not cleaned up. Also I did not look really closely as I am supposed to be finishing off the installation of another water tank and not "playing with toys!" For example the big bogey is broken teeth. Particularly on a rip saw even a single tooth effectively means you have to retooth the saw (unless for yourself you are prepared to wear one missing as it makes no difference that you can detect and probably makes for a cheap saw. The market doesn't like missing teeth.) The second bogey for most people is to select a straight plate. I didn't check for either of these issues. However, there were at least three times the number of saws available than I have posted.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  9. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    back in Alberta for a while
    Age
    68
    Posts
    12,006

    Default

    Thank you Paul.

    It looks like a cashed up buyer is spoilt for choice
    regards from Alberta, Canada

    ian

  10. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    A very opportune posting by Homsey135 on another thread making available a Spears and Jackson publication, a 1928 "Concerning Handsaws," allowed me to make some observations on what constitutes the "best" saw.

    Tool Catalogues

    Most of the major manufacturers had a similar publication to The S & J "Concerning Handsaws." Atkins has their "Saw Sense," Disston had their "Disston Saw Tool and File" booklet and Simonds had their " Simonds Guide for Carpenters." Each of these little booklets were a promotional vehicle that provided useful information and slid in a smattering of hype for their products.

    Spear and Jackson had some hyperbole for their top of the line hand saw:

    S & J Concerning handsaws 1928. No.171A World's Best Saw.jpg

    Some information on how to test a handsaw and interestingly the guage and taper grinding.

    S & J Concerning handsaws 1928. Testing and blade thickness.jpg

    A little bit of information regarding the tooth size for both crosscutting and ripping. I think that reflects the softer woods commonly used in the UK compared to to the US and very different to Australia. I had always thought that the Americans used PPI (point per inch) and the Brits used TPI (Teeth per inch), but this publication seems to refute that and it looks like they all stamped PPI on the heel of the saw plate.

    S & J Concerning handsaws 1928. Tooth size..jpg

    I have thought for some while that the Beech used by the UK was quite different to the Beech used in the US. S & J definitely thought this, although understandably they considered UK Beech to be superior. They did acknowledge Apple but maintained it was brittle and liable to crack even if it did look "handsome." That is not my experience, although I would say that Beech is generally more robust. Apple's advantage, to my mind, lies in it's consistency, it's workability and fine grain, but it can be bland (ooops, ducking for cover here). UK Beech seems to have more fleck (medullary rays) than the American species, but I don't find it more attractive. (This is from somebody who really likes the Australian Casuarina Oaks.)

    S & J Concerning handsaws. Temper and handle.jpg

    Of course all these publications were totally biased as they were promotional aids. If we were talking wars we would call it propaganda. I would have thought that the mirror finish was more to do with reduced friction (although I think the plane buffs may disagree on that point) but I will have to think making the saw less prone to rusting.

    Regards
    Paul
    Last edited by Bushmiller; 20th April 2018 at 09:49 PM. Reason: Made the pix bigger
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  11. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Interesting that there's so much emphasis on uniformity of manufacture. Seems to be the opposite of the schtick of the hand-toothers.
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  12. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,075

    Default

    I'm not sure that's the case. All of my planes are nearly identical. All of the irons I harden are nearly identical.

    If you look at the elements of carvings from professional carvers 200 years ago, they're nearly identical. the variations that occur are different than those that occur with machines, but the work that makes up the design and the fit is not loose.

    In my opinion, the biggest shame of the disston saws (which is understandable) is the uglifying of the handles while they were perfecting the plates. They went away from the English handles and modularized machine-done parts, and added elements like wheat to cover up the fact that the handles were bland and ugly.

    I've got plenty of saws that have wheat on the handles, but in general, it's a distasteful attempt to cover up the sharp lines that had been going downhill since the seaton saws. I wouldn't love varying hardness in saw plates (across the plate in a given saw, or wide variances in stiffness across plates, or big differences in hardness, which creates an issue where some saws eat files and some don't), but I wouldn't mind minor differences in taper amount if it was done by hand, and certainly some life in the parts of the handle that can vary while maintaining sharp lines would be nice.

    But we're viewing with a different lens. My grandparents grew up much later, and they had little interest in antiques other than a few things (converted gas lights to electric, etc). The rest of it, they wanted modern and convenience.

    Disston was pretty good at eliminating labor cost, but the handles suffered because of it.

    This is sort of like ward chisels, which were done in a factory, but with a lot of hand work and hand finishing. There's the misconception that because Wards chisels differed in hardness from Bucks, etc, that the old chisels were inconsistently hardened. That's just not the case. All of the bucks are like the buck, All of the wards are like the ward, and the quality was generally better than current. I've never had a ward chisel that was a dud, despite the "common knowledge that steel is better now". Steel is cheaper to make, but the selected steel used in ward chisels and irons is better than all but the best O1 steel made now, and i gather that because I can make a better O1 iron than I can buy, it's probably because the current boutique makers like Hock are not using stock as good as starrett or Presto (due to cost).

    Perhaps ward chisels were between 61 and 63 hardness across the board, and Hock can get within a half point, but their irons are chippy. They would say their process wouldn't allow the hardness variation that Ward chisels had, but Ward understood what made excellent chisels and it's superb stock, superb design and finishing and an acceptable hardness range.

  13. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    D.W.

    At the start of the 19th century all hand tools in America would have been British. When the fledgling US manufacturers began to produce their own offerings they had to make a point of difference. There had to be a reason for Americans to buy American made tools. Remember there was a marked backlash against the home grown products as they were seen as inferior.

    Initially all the steel was imported from the UK and even after Henry Disston had his own steel mill (1855) he kept that quiet and down played it's existence. Even the No.12 continued to refer to "London Spring Steel." As time went on there was more acceptance by the market of the American product. With handles the London pattern persisted for some time but I feel that is was more with back saws than hand saws. I have not checked that statement so it is certainly up for discussion. I like the Kenyon saws, but those in the Seaton tool chest were made around 1790, maybe even as late as 1797. Those famous saws were quirky and had style. As you said they relied on their form rather than decoration and I know this appeals to many woodworkers. However the shape to modern eyes was unusual:

    P1030757.jpg


    I liked it enough to attempt to replicate the original, albeit with an Australian timber:

    Kenyon Panel saw replica 010.jpg

    I think the narrowing of the timber at the top saw screw is what seems unbalanced. It reminds me somehow of paintings of horses from the same era. Their heads were elongated. The handle was functional more than stylistic. If we are looking for style perhaps this type of handle from R.Groves is elegant. I would place it as mid 1800s, but that is a wiild guess. Certainly pre Glover screw (1887)as it has split nuts.

    P1030759.jpgP1030760.jpg

    However I have to disagree that the Disston handles lacked style. Their handles up until WW1 were as good as it gets. It is true to say that earlier handles were better than late handles and they showed more finesse. Disston was ahead of his time and that is why the company survived. Around the 1870s, I think, Disston introduced the bandsaw to cut out the saw blanks and by 1900 the handles were no longer carved by hand but engraved with a rotary tool. This accounts for the very fine wheat carving in the early years of the No.12 compared to a coarser product post 1900. Now if you are talking post 1928 i agree that the handles were now purely a means of holding the saw and not much else.

    Just to get back to the Kenyon style handle,which was functional, surely the Atkins 400 handle had reverted to that philosophy as there is a complete absense of wheat carving and a less intricate handle design.

    Regards
    Paul





    Attachment 433980Attachment 433980
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  14. #103
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Knoxville
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushmiller View Post
    Just on the Diamond edge saws and the manufacturer, I saw this saw for sale which has an HJ Finch medallion. The handle is very like the Diamond edge DE145 and DE150. Note the abrupt line at the top of the saw.

    Attachment 433820Attachment 433821Attachment 433822


    I would suggest that these saws are made by the same manufacturer, but I still don't know who it is.

    Regards
    Paul
    Paul,

    My guess is those saws were made by Geo. H. Bishop. The handle is almost a dead ringer for the No. 90 model.

    As far as the Double Diamond model, my thoughts are leaning toward the Bishop saw that was named the "Greyhound" originally and had no model number associated to it at first. I have a few of these saws and the handle is Cuban mahogany but is different than the Double Diamond, more than likely for good reason called marketing. They definitely are a premium saw with a very good taper grind and polish on the blade.

    I believe the Keen Kutter No.K500 was basically the same saw also. It too had a mahogany handle and the same style blade. Geo. H. Bishop actually made quite a few saws for the large hardware firms.

    I've attached pictures of one of my Greyhound saws and the Keen Kutter No.K500.

    DSCN0555.jpgDSCN0556.jpgDSCN0560.jpgDSCN0561.jpgDSCN0480.JPGDSCN0526.jpgDSCN0509.jpgDSCN0518.jpg

    Take care,
    Daryl

  15. #104
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Hi Daryl

    Welcome to the Forums. May I say what a perfect place to start (particularly for you) .

    Geo Bishop is somebody I tend to forget, mainly because my knowledge of his products is severely lacking, but that Greyhound saw of yours is absolutely superb. I am reluctant to talk in superlatives because as soon as I do that something comes along that is better, but I would say that saw is as good as it gets! I have a great liking for the lambs tongue handle and the general style of that handle seems perfectly balanced with a smallish (correct) handle hole. I want one! Perhaps you could supply a little more information as to when that saw was produced. I quickly had a look at the few Bishop saws I have and none of them had a lambs tongue handle and none of them could hold a candle to the saw you have posted.

    One panel saw had "Greyhound" without a number, there was an OK No.8, several also ran No.8s and a No.300. That's pretty much exhausted my knowledge of G.H.Bishop! Just by chance on the same hook was a Keen Kutter 26" handsaw. The point I noticed about this saw (no etch) was that is had nickel plated brass hardware and a nib.

    With the Diamond Edge saws and the H M Finch, the aspect that has confused me is the almost vertical timber ahead of the top cove. I have not really seen this on other saw handles. I have highlighted this difference below.

    HM Finch medallion. - Copy.jpgKeen Kutter - Copy.jpg1910 Diamond edge 2[14799] - Copy (2).jpg

    Apologies for the wiggly red line: I can't draw to save myself. It was this difference that alerted me to the similarity with some of the Diamond edge saws and, other than the DE saws, I have not really seen this "angular" treatment at the top of the handle from other saw manufacturers. I suppose we have to consider that they may have made special handles for selected customers, but I would have thought that rather defeated the attraction of selling more of their own saws just rebadged: A fairly simple process compared to designing a separate handle.

    On a separate note, one point I should mention for readers of this thread is that the first saw I showed in post #97, the Disston No.7, when I was "finding" rip saws for Ian, is a saw restored and sharpened by Darryl.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  16. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Knoxville
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Paul,

    I blatantly ripped this picture from Google photos, so hopefully the internet police won't come after me!

    90.jpg

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Plastic "Bung Taps" - I want to "click" a garden hose onto the end of one...?
    By Batpig in forum NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOODWORK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 7th May 2017, 04:05 PM
  2. Why do so many "private" eBay sellers only offer "local pickup"?...
    By Batpig in forum NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOODWORK
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 16th July 2016, 08:57 PM
  3. eBay: How long can you "Save" the "Draft"-listing of an item you want to sell?...
    By Batpig in forum NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOODWORK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22nd January 2011, 06:04 PM
  4. Protecting the "earth" cable.
    By ubeaut in forum PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, HEATING, COOLING, etc
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16th November 2008, 07:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •