Why and how a square insert works [Archive]

Frank&Earnest

26th October 2009, 01:54 PM

When I first wrote about my crudely made but effective tools consisting of a square tungsten carbide cutter mounted at 90 and 45 degrees on a square bar (picture) I claimed that they were very versatile and could substitute many conventional tools, but possibly did not do as good a job as tools specifically designed for certain jobs. In particular, they can not turn very small coves.

After using them to turn very thin finials, I claimed that, with the same proviso that thin grooves and coves require other miniature tools, they can perform this task better than conventional tools, to the point that even an unskilled turner like me can achieve pleasing results. This claim was received, I think, with a certain amount of skepticism, even if the photo of the result was there to support the claim.

Now I think I have found the reason why they are so versatile and work so well for miniature turning, and submit the following argument to your scrutiny: they make easier to shear (cut or scrape, whichever name you prefer) by providing more support on the toolrest and facilitating cutting the grain in a supported manner.

Part of the reason is the angle of the bisel: at 47 degrees smack in the middle of the 32 of a skew and the 65 of a scraper (all approximate figures, of course).

If shearing is what the skew is designed to do (diagram A) and the scraper is designed to scrape with the burr (diagram B), raising the back of a skew to use it for scraping (diagram C) with the top of the blade at the same slightly negative angle of incidence of the scraper (a) reduces the shearing ability while leaving part of the difficulty to control. Using the insert tool (diagram D) provides instead the opportunity to shear with the blade at the same safe angle as the scraper and the square bar firmly supported by the toolrest. when the spindle is only a couple of millimetres thick the difference is substantial.

This train of thought was spurred by NeilS comment that :
"...Frank uses it (the insert tool) to both start and finish the job, with a final fine scrape that produces wispy thin fluff off the tool.
...
Watching Frank using the tool I observed that most of his cutting is done on the sides of the insert while making lateral sweep with the tool, a bit like a pull cut with the wings of a gouge."

I had already found out by observation that "a pull cut with the wings of a gouge" works in the same way, then TTIT recently answered my question about what actually is a shear cut and what makes it better and added the same example.

I then analysed the way I use the tool and saw the reason for the analogy and the effectiveness of the cut: diagram E a), b) and c) show that by pulling (or pushing) the corner of the cutter into the grain with the tool still solidly supported by the square bar making full contact with the tool rest, most of the grain is always supported. Diagram F shows that the cutting surface and the cutting angle on the inside of a hollow form are virtually identical to those of a gouge wing used on the side, with the advantage that the tool is fully supported and not rolling on the toolrest.

After realising that the technique in diagram F corresponds exactly to E a) and c) in reference to the grain , E b) being the intermediate position dictated by the shape of the desired curve, the way the tool works for shearing is fully clear.

Any comments and refinements greatly appreciated.

jefferson

26th October 2009, 03:11 PM

Frank,

Too much detail for it all to sink in with me with all the "angles". I was never strong at maths and the "theory" side is (for me anyway) complicated.

Can I add some more angle issues into the discussion?

I (mostly) use big HD scrapers for bigger stuff. Bevel angle maybe 75-80 degrees. Safe apparently. Lots of flurry curlies yesterday and no, repeat no, burr on the scraper. I took it off on the Tormek. And I tip the tool down, a little over centre. Why should I go steeper?

Ken W's scraper is already at 45 degrees and Vic Wood's are even sharper. Apparently a delicate touch is required as these are more aggressive apparently.

What difference does that make? Are their scrapers performing the same as my Ci1?

And what about "negative rake scrapers". (I have a square skew - is that one???)

About all I can add to the discussion thus far is this: if I am using the gouge correctly with the bevel rubbing not too hard, I get a near perfect finish "off the tool".

But not so on wood that is at all cranky, (say fiddleback redgum). Then, the skew gives the worst result, followed by a gouge. Best results is from my scrapers. And that is not just me but the experience of quite a few other turners here on the forum.

Someone might explain that one for me. :D:D:D My early thinking is that the "downhill cutting" rule doesn't give the same benefit on inter-lcoking grain patterns.

Also, another question:

- are there any shapes that you cannot make with a scraper? I'm thinking discs may be one, but stand to be corrected.

A "brave" opening, Frank.

The worms are already exiting the can. :wink:

Skew ChiDAMN!!

26th October 2009, 03:21 PM

Sounds to me like you're on the right track.

Especially if you've used round bar-stock for the handle, as then no matter how you roll it you've always got tool support in more or less the right area.

So, between the ability to roll it safely to any angle and to present it at either a scraping or shearing angle you can more or less adjust the working angle at the face to suit a whole range of conditions.

I love my oland-style tools, they're just so versatile! :2tsup:

jefferson

26th October 2009, 03:53 PM

BTW, what's that pointy scraper thing that Cindy Drozder uses? Not sure whether is that an insert on it though.

Do I need one of those as well?

Frank&Earnest

26th October 2009, 04:20 PM

Hi Jeff, here are my two cents, more for opening the discussion than anything. Proper advice will have to come from more experienced people. :wink:

.....

I (mostly) use big HD scrapers for bigger stuff. Bevel angle maybe 75-80 degrees. Safe apparently. Lots of flurry curlies yesterday and no, repeat no, burr on the scraper. I took it off on the Tormek. And I tip the tool down, a little over centre. Why should I go steeper?

Ken W's scraper is already at 45 degrees and Vic Wood's are even sharper. Apparently a delicate touch is required as these are more aggressive apparently.

What difference does that make? Are their scrapers performing the same as my Ci1?

In broad terms, I would think they would not be too different.

And what about "negative rake scrapers". (I have a square skew - is that one???)

Don't know the definition. As a guess, a square skew should perform better than a skew skew :D in the position of diagram C, but should have the same problems.

About all I can add to the discussion thus far is this: if I am using the gouge correctly with the bevel rubbing not too hard, I get a near perfect finish "off the tool".

But not so on wood that is at all cranky, (say fiddleback redgum). Then, the skew gives the worst result, followed by a gouge. Best results is from my scrapers. And that is not just me but the experience of quite a few other turners here on the forum.

Yep, I do not think you will have any arguments with that.

....

- are there any shapes that you cannot make with a scraper? I'm thinking discs may be one, but stand to be corrected.

Depends what you mean by scraper. If you call my tools scrapers, yes, I can make very thin disks with them. In the photo below is a wearable hat for a certain kind of people we all know. :D The section shows the thickness compared to a dollar coin.

rsser

26th October 2009, 05:42 PM

Interesting F&E.

The Bedan as used by the French guy who popularised it cuts on the corner too.

Frank&Earnest

26th October 2009, 06:20 PM

Interesting F&E.

The Bedan as used by the French guy who popularised it cuts on the corner too.

Yes, that's why I call my tool a bedan and not a scraper.

artme

26th October 2009, 09:55 PM

Very interesting discussion. I will bet the traditionalists will be gnashing their teeth. Like my mate who says he cuts timber, not scrapes it.

He got stuck into me one day for taking the "meat" out of a bowl by using a wide parting tool that looks like a Bedan.

F&E how is the finish off the tool? Do you think it requires more sanding than traditional methods?

WOODbTURNER

27th October 2009, 11:10 AM

[He got stuck into me one day for taking the "meat" out of a bowl by using a wide parting tool that looks like a Bedan.]

Hey!

If it works for you, go for it!

Ed Reiss

27th October 2009, 11:56 AM

F&E...I'm with Jefferson on this one. Never good at math and usually my brain glazes over with engineering drawings. But your explanation deserves merit so will have to try the tool one of these days. :U

Frank&Earnest

27th October 2009, 01:27 PM

Thanks for your comments guys. Constructive criticism is also very welcome, we are all here for the learning, aren't we? :)

Artme, I know what you mean, bigots are bigots in whatever field...:wink: As regards the finish off the tool, I think even the traditionalists accept that a shear scrape generally produces the best results. The big advantage with this tool is that you can use it effectively both as a WMD or as a microsurgeon scalpel... (now, this will raise some heckles, I hope...) :D

Ed, that's the spirit. (Btw, I saw your box with carved finial, very nice.) If people like you try it, the analysis of its merits will certainly improve no end. Actually, writing the last sentence made me think: all those who are metalwork challenged and can not make "it" themselves following my designs and photos are at a bit of a loss. I'll post below a possible solution to this.

Skew, thank you for your contribution. I am not sure I understand it. Are you saying that you think a round bar would be better than the square bar? That would actually shoot down my analysis in flames... I thought that it is in fact the square base and the blade being parallel to the grain that allow the stability and the maximum control of the shearing action produced by the lateral movement at the angle deemed to be the most appropriate (because any angle between 0 and 180 is possible with the two tools) on the one plane that includes (approximately) the centre of the spindle and the top surface of the blade. In other words, the cut is always with the grain and across the grain in the proportion you want.

My apologies to both the mechanically challenged and the real engineers for my imprecise expression... :-

Frank&Earnest

27th October 2009, 02:08 PM

Ok, back to the availability of tools to try. Those of you who have a Ci1 can experiment a bit, but you will not have the full 180 degrees range of lateral sweep and there is no guarantee that the insert is as good as the one I have used (could also be ten times better for what we know, but we don't know).

For all those who can not or would not bother making them but would like to try (at the worst, there is no doubt they are good to rip through wood like a brick through a window) there is a couple of possible solutions, if there is a sufficient number (say 20 to start) of people interested.

A) I hack a batch of the 2 tool sets with the grinder, the drill press and the tap as I made mine and post them all over Australia for $50 a set, that is pure materials and postage cost, no charge for my labour of love :D.

B) I get in touch with a tool maker and get the batch made with proper machines. Cost unknown but say $100 or less to your door. When you have one set in Sydney you can show it to Hughie and ask him to make them for you.:D

Tools unhandled of course. Replacement cutters are commercially available, if you think a box of 10 would last you a lifetime (it should) group buys can be arranged and posted around as normal mail.

Post here if you are interested in A or B and, if B, whether you would fall back on A if not enough people are interested in B.

If we get to 20 we can get the ball rolling.

Skew ChiDAMN!!

27th October 2009, 02:30 PM

Skew, thank you for your contribution. I am not sure I understand it. Are you saying that you think a round bar would be better than the square bar?

Sorry I didn't explain myself better... I was having a "fuzzy" night. :B

Being a cheapskate, I don't have a Ci'X' as such... Instead, I bought a couple of tips and made my own shaft that simply slotted into the end of an oland tool, which is made of round stock.

So I've been able to roll the tool slightly and can tell you it does make a difference. It's much easier to tweak the presentation angle just right to get a nice, smooth finishing cut, for example.

However, I don't believe that this shoots down your reasoning at all. :) Quite the contrary, I think you're on the right track as to why it works... it's just that wood - being as varied and cantankerous as only wood can be :rolleyes: - doesn't always "play by the rules."

TTIT

27th October 2009, 04:49 PM

Frank&Earnest

27th October 2009, 07:08 PM

Try as I might, I just can't see how one of these can 'shear scrape' without the shaft being rolled on the toolrest which is the same as rolling a normal scraper on the toolrest - no longer supporting the cut :?. To me it is still just a scraper made from different metal :shrug: and any scraper applied with a gentle enough touch will provide fluffy shavings and a smooth finish :shrug:
Maybe the reason I prefer shear scraping is that you don't have to be as gentle to get the same result - it's a lot more forgiving :;

Ok - back to my dark corner..........

I have no problem with "To me it is still just a scraper made from different metal and any scraper applied with a gentle enough touch will provide fluffy shavings and a smooth finish". Is everybody happy with taking this as the starting point?

As regards the first paragraph, it might mean that I have not understood the concept of shear scraping. My drawing skills are not better than my verbal skills, but the following sketch might simplify our understanding. If I understand what you are saying here, it is that shear cutting can be achieved only by manipulating angle C, while I am saying that an equivalent result (don't know whether it meets a strict definition of shear cutting, because I have not found one yet) can be achieved by manipulating angle B.
Did I understand correctly?

TTIT

27th October 2009, 08:29 PM

........................ If I understand what you are saying here, it is that shear cutting can be achieved only by manipulating angle C, while I am saying that an equivalent result (don't know whether it meets a strict definition of shear cutting, because I have not found one yet) can be achieved by manipulating angle B.
Did I understand correctly?Angle C is the shot F&E :2tsup: Because the edge hits the timber at an angle, it slices the fibres rather than tears them. With an edge horizontally aligned such as a scraper, I can't think of any way of achieving the same result regardless of it's alignment to the centre-line (angle B) :shrug:

Frank&Earnest

27th October 2009, 09:01 PM

Angle C is the shot F&E :2tsup: Because the edge hits the timber at an angle, it slices the fibres rather than tears them.

OK, I understood correctly, then. I think I know the answer, but I have not worked out how to explain it yet. Last bits of information I need: are you talking spindle work (grain running horizontally) or face work (grain rotating vertically towards and away from the blade) or both? The edge you are talking about is the front or the side or an arc of what shape scraper? Your help is very valuable to me, thanks.

TTIT

27th October 2009, 11:11 PM

OK, I understood correctly, then. I think I know the answer, but I have not worked out how to explain it yet. Last bits of information I need: are you talking spindle work (grain running horizontally) or face work (grain rotating vertically towards and away from the blade) or both? The edge you are talking about is the front or the side or an arc of what shape scraper? Your help is very valuable to me, thanks.The technique works fine on either grain orientation. The Sorby scraper is a pointed teardrop with one straight side to it, I use the straight side on convex shapes like the outside of bowls or 'onions' on spindles. The varying curvature of the rest of the teardrop I use on concave curves like the inside of bowls and hollow forms etc. The point of the teardrop is handy for shear-scraping right into corners of details or even defining the detail.
I don't know if the way I use the scraper is 'correct' as I've never seen anyone else use one but this weekend at Prossy I'll see if I can get someone to take some pics of me using it and I'll post them when I get back for your perusal :U

Frank&Earnest

28th October 2009, 06:15 PM

OK, I'm ready to present my argument.

Let's start from the basics, if we agree on these the rest should follow.

Shearing, or shaving, means pushing an acute bisel into the timber at an acute angle.

Scraping means pushing onto the timber at an obtuse angle, (generally) with a much less acute bisel than that used for shearing.

Shear scraping means pushing a scraper (i.e. a bisel of around 60 degrees) into the timber at as acute an angle as it is allowed by the angle of the bisel or, in other words, trying to use a scraper as a chisel or a gouge. In correct English, IMHO, the expression should be "shearing with a scraper". Which brings up the obvious question: if a shear cut is desired, why use a tool not designed for the job? My guess is that because a scraper works better than a chisel on the end grain, a reasonable finish on all the round surface of a turning is a better result than leaving patches of poor finish of the end grain in an otherwise better surface.

Whether you call the expression "shear scraping" trade lingo or oxymoron depends therefore on the extent of your love for the language as compared to your love for the trade. :D

If we are agreed on this definition, the position of the tool depends on the angle formed by the upper surface of the blade with the surface of the timber, not by the angle formed by the tool with the three dimensional axes. Any position of the tool that allows penetration of the timber at an acute angle produces a "shear" cut.

Shaving with a plane or scraping a flat surface involves only two angles: the set of the blade and the direction of the grain. In turning, all three angles A, B and C shown in the previous diagrams are involved.

To tilt the blade at an angle (C) with the vertical axis produces a shear cut only if the grain of the timber runs parallel to the vertical axis, as in facework approached orthogonally to the spindle. If the facework is approached parallel to the spindle, the same result is achieved lowering the handle (angle A), as NeilS abundantly demonstrated. If the grain runs parallel to the horizontal axis, as in spindle work, lowering the handle would work in the same way, but tilting a scraper to the side (angle C) would be counterproductive, because it would make the angle of the blade with the grain more obtuse. It works with the side of a gouge because in that case the cutting edge is about vertical in its normal position, not horizontal.

Pushing a square cutter in an arc (B) on the horizontal plane does work because the front of the blade gently scrapes the spindle at the correct angle while the side of the blade cuts the end grain orthogonally, that is, at the angle that separates the definition of shearing and scraping. The direction in which force is applied is the reason why, IMHO, it is much easier to produce extremely thin spindlework with this tool than with other tools.

The same principle applies to facework when the tool is presented parallel to the spindle and moved on the horizontal plane. If it is presented orthogonally to the spindle the angle A determined by raising or lowering the handle affects the cut as it would with other tools.

NeilS

29th October 2009, 02:51 PM

Shaving with a plane or scraping a flat surface involves only two angles: the set of the blade and the direction of the grain.

The simplest way I can think about shear cutting/scraping is to use the analogy of the wood plane. Angle a plane (say at 45deg) to the direction of the grain/board and push the plane along the board and you get a curly shaving. That's a shear cut.

Frank - I've tied to get my head around your thread, but it has defeated me at this stage. Maybe I have not applied myself sufficiently to the task. Perhaps I need to come back to it later with a fresh mind.

.....

rsser

29th October 2009, 03:49 PM

Yes, I had the same thought Neil.

But then a plane blade is usually only going with the grain, at least with one pass. All that skewing it does is raise the effective blade angle and it would normally only be required on interlocked grain as it breaks the shaving rather than lifting the fibres.

Frank&Earnest

29th October 2009, 04:20 PM

Thanks for telling me Neil, I was worried this was the reason why nobody had commented yet. My communication skills seem not to be as developed as my geometry skills...:-

I am happy that at least one thing is clear and agreed, the definition of shearing.

A plane shears (shaves) and its blade has an acute bisel and is always set to penetrate the wood at an acute (less than 90 degrees) angle.

Similarly, we should be able to agree on the definition of scraping.

A cabinetmaking flat scraper (generally ground square) is always pulled on the surface at an obtuse (more than 90 degrees) angle (in order to avoid gouging, or shearing with a scraper :U).

It is the same with turning, as the sketch below should show.

Please let me know if there is any problem so far, if there isn't, I'll try to sketch what comes after.

Frank&Earnest

29th October 2009, 09:26 PM

Ern, your answer to Neil has switched on another light bulb.

All I have said so far about angles and why I think the square insert works still stands, but the problem could be in the semantics. To try to pin down the definition of "shear scraping" is hard work, but the common point of all the descriptions seems to be the tilting of the blade about 45 degrees on the side, as Vern said.

So, if "shear" is used in a completely different way here and has nothing to do with a shear cut, but is used to modify the verb "scraping" in a way that escapes my understanding of the language, this expression might just mean "scraping at an obtuse angle" (which is the proper technique to avoid gouging, as said above).
The operative word being "scraping" justifies also using other blades, eg gouges, not only scrapers.

So, what I said before, that tilting the blade on the side produces an obtuse angle and therefore is counterproductive if a shearing cut is desired, is exactly what makes it work if "shear scraping" means "scraping at an obtuse angle".

Makes sense now? If it still does not, from now on I will use only sign language...:D

rsser

29th October 2009, 10:46 PM

Yep.

A bit of a digression from the OT: imagine that the scraper has a burr. Close up that looks like a mangled saw edge. Presented flat, those 'teeth' may be pushing the fibres sideways before cutting, and the cutting will be harder to achieve as the fibres are more compressed than otherwise (being pushed into the bottom of a V ). They will be more likely to be pulled out rather than cut (depending on the timber).

Present that row of teeth at say 45 degrees to the travel of the wood (ie. shear angle), and what do you see?

.....

With some bits of interlocked grain say inside a bowl, a flat scraper presentation works best; eg with Blackwood. I learned this from .

In terms of the saw tooth analogy, why would this be the case?

Frank&Earnest

29th October 2009, 11:35 PM

Glad I finally got it. At least from now on anybody searching for "shear scraping" on the web can find an unequivocal definition...:2tsup:

So the angle C on the side of the blade is equivalent to raising the handle (angle A) when the tip of the blade is used.

I see where you are going with the saw tooth analogy, I wonder though whether it would actually result in a compression at "the bottom of the v" because of the relatively larger size of the wood fibre. I'll take your word for it. On the other hand, what you say means that using the tool at a shear angle would blunt the burr much more quickly, wouldn't it?

This is probably the main point of distinction with the CT insert: it is probably more appropriate to call it a bedan than a scraper, because it does not cut with the burr.

Jefferson has sent me the original KenW finial I had copied from the photograph. I had the dimensions right but all overestimated by exactly 20%. Now my challenge is to go that bit thinner...Given that now I have a huge amount of practice (4 finials) it should be easy!:D

rsser

30th October 2009, 07:20 AM

Yes, as always, whatever works!

oldiephred

30th October 2009, 09:28 AM

Frank&Earnest

30th October 2009, 10:37 AM

My old head won't absorb all of the verbage that is going on in this thread but I have gleaned enough to ask what this square shaft tool will offer that is not equally, or better, offered by a piece of round shaft with a hole in the end to recieve a piece of high speed steel cutting tool, secured with a set screw ( i.e a home made oland tool)?

If nothing else, consider it an evolved Oland tool that does not need sharpening. My apologies for the verbiage, please consider it a mental exercise for postponing dementia.:)

oldiephred

31st October 2009, 08:40 AM

Hope I did not offend. I think you did a very good job of explaining your position. Just added my 2cents worth because I was unsure of the benefits that you obviously see.:2tsup:

Frank&Earnest

31st October 2009, 03:35 PM

No offense at all. A picture is worth 1000 words, hopefully the following pictures need no explanation. I discovered that I can also roll the tool as a skew, without losing the support of the toolrest. The last picture makes my case, I think.

NeilS

1st November 2009, 11:05 AM

..... I think you did a very good job of explaining your position....

Like oldiephred, I don't think there was any shortcomings in your words or diagrams, just that three dimensional processes are a difficult to describe.

A picture is worth 1000 words, hopefully the following pictures need no explanation. I discovered that I can also roll the tool as a skew, without losing the support of the toolrest.

Yes, Frank, those photos make your use of the tool clearer.

Photos 1&4 look like traditional scraping cuts to me.

Photos 2&3 look like slicing cuts, bedan style.

Photo 5 looks like a slicing square chisel cut, if the cut is being made on the front face of the cutter. If the side of the cutter is doing most of the work, then it's a scraping cut.

BTW, I don't think I can see any shear scraping in those photos.

That sure is a tiny finial from that size tool!

.....

rsser

1st November 2009, 11:47 AM

F&E, I take it 'bisel' means the same thing as bevel?

BTW this thread has reminded me of the complexity of the interaction between cutting edge and grain orientation in turning. We cut at radial or tangential angles or somewhere between, with one or a mix of long, cross and end grain.

It's prob too much to expect that one tool or presentation will do a good job of all that. Certainly doesn't work with flatware.

Frank&Earnest

1st November 2009, 12:17 PM

....
BTW, I don't think I can see any shear scraping in those photos.

That sure is a tiny finial from that size tool!

.....

Thanks for pointing this out, Neil. After establishing that shear scraping means "scraping at an obtuse angle" and not "shear cutting with a scraper" I did not retrace my steps to say clearly that this is not how this tool works. I still believe the description I gave, which does not support either definition really, but is closer to my earlier interpretation, still works, though. I copy it here:
***
Pushing a square cutter in an arc (B) on the horizontal plane does work because the front of the blade gently scrapes the spindle at the correct angle while the side of the blade cuts the end grain orthogonally, that is, at the angle that separates the definition of shearing and scraping. The direction in which force is applied is the reason why, IMHO, it is much easier to produce extremely thin spindlework with this tool than with other tools.

The same principle applies to facework when the tool is presented parallel to the spindle and moved on the horizontal plane. If it is presented orthogonally to the spindle the angle A determined by raising or lowering the handle affects the cut as it would with other tools.
***

What do you think?

BTW, even the "experts" can be quite confusing. A recent book on turning, left anonymous to protect the guilty, says: "Shear scraping, or shear cutting as it should be called, is where the tool is presented to the face at an angle of about 45o, creating a slicing action...." and the photo shows the presentation at an obtuse angle with the surface. I bet my bottom dollar that the author does not understand the reason behind it.

Frank&Earnest

1st November 2009, 12:32 PM

F&E, I take it 'bisel' means the same thing as bevel?

:-

recipe: cutting edge for an Anglicised be'dane:

take 1/2 French biseau and 1/2 English bevel...:D

It's happening more and more, though, I am @#$%^ worried. :C

Agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.

NeilS

1st November 2009, 06:12 PM

What do you think?

From what I can see Frank, you are right, you use the tool in such a way that "the side of the blade cuts the end grain", and when working on fine spindles I guess that would have the advantage of most of the force pushing parallel to the axis, which should reduce the need for steadying support.

As for your claim that "it is much easier to produce extremely thin spindle work with this tool than with other tools", perhaps could be restated to say that you find it much easier?

But then, if Ken Wraith declares it to be easier or even better than other tools then you will probably have a lot of people agreeing with you.....:U.

.....

Frank&Earnest

1st November 2009, 08:50 PM

As for your claim that "it is much easier to produce extremely thin spindle work with this tool than with other tools", perhaps could be restated to say that you find it much easier?

But then, if Ken Wraith declares it to be easier or even better than other tools then you will probably have a lot of people agreeing with you.....:U.

.....

Ok, ok, touche'. :D

My fault for believing that the direction of applying the force would be sufficient justification and not spelling out the syllogism:

- I am an unskilled turner

- with this tool I can do things that unskilled turners find difficult to do with conventional tools

- ergo this tool is easier for unskilled turners to handle than conventional tools.

Of course, the syllogism works only if "unskilled" means the same for all turners, I hope not to have started a philosophical debate now... :D

That's why I was looking for confirmation from the experience of the masses, not from the semigods who can do everything anyway. Why should they change what works best for them? :wink:

hughie

1st November 2009, 11:46 PM

Ah! Zen and the Art of the Wood turner. :D a worthy topic grasshopper

NeilS

2nd November 2009, 09:18 AM

- with this tool I can do things that unskilled turners find difficult to do with conventional tools

- ergo this tool is easier for unskilled turners to handle than conventional tools.

Perhaps I should test this out at my local Men's Shed where I have been helping a few of them to do some elementary turning. They would be a good test group as they are unlikely to go beyond the elementary level, so less likely falter later for the lack of skills with the standard tool set.

I'll report back on how that has gone.

.....

Frank&Earnest

2nd November 2009, 10:46 AM

Wonderful, Neil, much appreciated. Would another tool help? I have one last bar left.

I just had another thought: forgetting the advantage of not sharpening, the same results or even better because of improved access should be achievable with a tool that reproduces the 3 cutting edges of the insert: that is an HSS steel bar about 1/8" thick and 1/2" wide sharpened at about 45 degrees on three sides. Sharpening them properly won't be easy, though.

I am on a roll here, one thought brings another: two recycled plane blades should be the ticket, the long side is alredy sharpened, just need to be sharpened square on the short side. Forget the other side and make another tool with the sharpening on the opposite side, just to try out the idea, if it works then you can go to the trouble of sharpening the third side on both tools.

It might give the skilled turners an opportunity to have a go at a new technique! :wink:

Heaven knows, posterity might even know this as the "Frank tool"....:D:D:D

NeilS

2nd November 2009, 12:28 PM

Would another tool help?

They only have one lathe, so mine will do, but, thanks for the offer.

I just had another thought: forgetting the advantage of not sharpening, the same results or even better because of improved access should be achievable with a tool that reproduces the 3 cutting edges of the insert: that is an HSS steel bar about 1/8" thick and 1/2" wide sharpened at about 45 degrees on three sides.

Would have to be careful not to extend an 1/8" 'blade' too far beyond the toolrest; tempered HSS still being reasonably brittle. The other thought is that such a thin profile wouldn't lend itself so readily to being rolled. The depth of your current square bar provides more support under the cutting edge when rolled.

It will be interesting to see what you come up with, Frank.

Heaven knows, posterity might even know this as the "Frank tool"....http://cdn.woodworkforums.com/http://cdn.woodworkforums.com/http://cdn.woodworkforums.com/images/smilies/standard/biggrin.gifhttp://cdn.woodworkforums.com/http://cdn.woodworkforums.com/http://cdn.woodworkforums.com/images/smilies/standard/biggrin.gifhttp://cdn.woodworkforums.com/http://cdn.woodworkforums.com/http://cdn.woodworkforums.com/images/smilies/standard/biggrin.gif

PS: I think the Ci1 has locally become the Fi1, already.... :U

.....

Frank&Earnest

2nd November 2009, 01:36 PM

They only have one lathe, so mine will do, but, thanks for the offer.

... not with that 3 foot handle, surely?

Would have to be careful not to extend an 1/8" 'blade' too far beyond the toolrest; tempered HSS still being reasonably brittle. The other thought is that such a thin profile wouldn't lend itself so readily to being rolled. The depth of your current square bar provides more support under the cutting edge when rolled.

It will be interesting to see what you come up with, Frank.

Point taken about the rolling, thanks.

PS: I think the Ci1 has locally become the Fi1, already.... :U

.....

Locally? I want the world, mwahahaha (rats, can't find the devil smilie) :D

jefferson

4th November 2009, 10:43 AM

Frank,

I've been out to the post box.... Empty. :(( I'm looking forward to the finials - maybe tomorrow?

Now, can I now add my two cent's worth?

1. I don't understand all the reasons why some tools and bevel angles work or not. Way too complicated for me, in spite of several attempts at understanding it. That's how the thread started..... But the thread is just as much about the pros and cons of the insert tools. So.....

2. With one or two exceptions, I accept that you can "scrape" and not "cut" almost anything with an insert tool. (The depth and closeness of discs either side of a bead cannot be done with an insert tool - unless you use it like a stanley blade ie unsupported. Also, short grain wood like redgum needs to be cut on end grain, not scraped. At least for me anyway. )

3. Speed may be important to some. And I think that it's true that you can cut faster with a gouge than say a Ci1.

4. Much pleasure is gained by a beginner when you learn to cut, not scrape your way to a decent shape. I did anyway.

5. Whatever works "best" is right for everyone. Ken W. scrapes his finials too, using his tiny square skew against the wood and between his fingers.

6. The insert tools are very useful, particularly for beginners. You get an outcome, as Frank has mentioned many times, with very little expertise. Not as many catches either.

7. One other advantage with the inserts is that you don't need to learn how to sharpen. That is a separate skill that can be difficult for beginners. And a costly one if you go down the Tormek route.

8. There is no shame in scraping or using only insert tools. I "cheat" all the time. Probably everyone does.

9. There is also something to admire about those that "turn" well without scrapers. I really enjoyed watching and Jim (Powderpost) do it the "right" way on some spindles - no need for sandpaper. Same with the brief moments I had watching Vern do an egg for me and seeing Cliff hard at it. Aspirational goals for me.

10. Scraping - with steel or the inserts - does require skill. You can have the most massive catches using a scraper...... :B

I could go on, but I need to be brief.

All this has got me thinking that I should round the square bar stock on my Easywood tools so I don't mar my tool rests. I've never tried them in the "sheer scraping" position for that very reason..... :rolleyes:

One last one. My favourite tool? My 1 1/2x turing glasses, closely followed by my Ci0. I say no more. Next time I'm in SA, maybe you can explain it all to me (again) Frank. Thanks for the effort you and the others have put into this lively thread.