'What flute profile does this gouge have?

[NeilS]

I offered my old P&N bowl gouge to another forum member only to find that its flute profile isn't as I remembered it to be. It has been sitting in my tool rack unused for over twenty years so it is a long time since I have had a close look at it.

To my eye its flute profile is neither a traditional U nor within what is commonly referred to as the V profile.

What is your opinion?

Here it is:

421233
P&N 5/8" bowl gouge




I would call the following gouge profile U. I expect there will not be disagreement on that.


421232
Crown 1" bowl gouge

Henry Taylor tools refer to this profile as 'Traditional', viz.


http://www.henrytaylortools.co.uk/gifs/ch6.gif

More varied are the profiles that are commonly referred to as V.


421226
D-Way 5/8"
bowl gouge

421227
Thompson 15v 5/8" bowl gouge


421230
Woodcut 1/2" bowl gouge

421231
Ellsworth Sig 5/8" bowl gouge

421229
Henry Taylor 5/8" bowl gouge






The last two are 'catenary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catenary)' variation of the V flute profile, sometimes referred to with marketing terms like Superflute and Masterflute, but included under the general V flute descriptor.

These descriptors may seem esoteric but the type of flute profile on a gouge has implications for the grind profiles that can be applied to it.

The opinion of experienced turners on how they would classify the flute profile on the above P&N, particularity those that use the U profile, would be appreciated.

And, if anyone is using this gouge with a swept back grind, how well does it take that?

Thanks

[Robson Valley]

First of all, do you think that this old gouge might follow the accepted standard patterns of the London Pattern Book?
Ashley Iles, Henry Taylor, Stubai, Auroioux, Pfeil, Narex and others sing from the same page.
The sweep numbers run up into the 70's for carving gouges.
I don't own a complete copy of the LPB.
I suspect that turning profiles have their own page.


If it was a carving tool:
It isn't a #9 which is a 'U' but tall and parallel wings and not a #11 for the sweep.
What is the angle between the wings?
#12 = 60 degrees
#13 = 90
#14 = 55
#15 = 45
#16 = 35

[NeilS]

What is the angle between the wings?
#12 = 60 degrees
#13 = 90
#14 = 55
#15 = 45
#16 = 35

Hi RV

The terms U and V are now common terminology to describe the flute profile of a bowl gouges, but as far as I know these terms have just evolved as a way of describing the profile without there being any commonly agreed definition. I'm not about to take on that task, just wanting to get opinions about this particular gouge so the new owner won't get confused by me using loose terminology.

The internal angle between the wings is 35deg, but I have never heard of that system being applied to turning tools. It is also an Australian made gouge, so perhaps unlikely to adhere to a UK pattern.

Thanks for your contribution.

[ronboult]

High Neil
As far as I know the only difference between a V and a U shape is the angle of the sides and the radius at the bottom of the Flute.
A V gouge has a greater angle between the wings and a tight radius at the bottom.
A U gouge has almost parallel sides and a larger radius at the bottom.
Different manufacturers make all sorts of variations between the two.
A U flute is meant to clog less but the V flute gives a better cut. I think Doug Thomson who makes both prefers a V flute. I have only used Doug's V profile

You are correct that V & U flutes produce different wing profiles on a swept back grind.

However the last style you show is quite different to both the V & U profiles. The V & U profiles both have straight sides to the flute and this affects the shape of the wing on a swept back grind.

I prefer the parabolic grind with curved flute sides preferring the swept back wings produced by this shape. The parabolic flute was as far as I know first developed by Roy Child and manufactured by Henry Taylor and sold under the Superflute label. It has been around for a long time and has stood the test of time. They are now quite expensive but a really worth a try.
Cheers
Ron

[NeilS]

However the last style you show is quite different to both the V & U profiles. The V & U profiles both have straight sides to the flute and this affects the shape of the wing on a swept back grind.

I prefer the parabolic grind with curved flute sides preferring the swept back wings produced by this shape. The parabolic flute was as far as I know first developed by Roy Child and manufactured by Henry Taylor and sold under the Superflute label. It has been around for a long time and has stood the test of time. They are now quite expensive but a really worth a try.
Cheers
Ron

Ron, thanks for your contribution.

I agree with your analysis.

On the Henry Taylor profile, yes that is its history. I think that the Glaser Hitec bowl gouge (https://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glaserhitec.com%2Fshop%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F04%2F10V-3-8obg-thumb1-246x256.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glaserhitec.com%2Fshop%2Fshopping%2F38-oval-bowl-gouge-10v%2F&docid=qjV7Apv5WhAR3M&tbnid=QOgig5qUxW88kM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiPsrPjvdDWAhXDULwKHVPgDqMQMwgoKAEwAQ..i&w=246&h=256&bih=734&biw=1536&q=hitec%20bowl%20gouge&ved=0ahUKEwiPsrPjvdDWAhXDULwKHVPgDqMQMwgoKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8) range may also use that profile, or a variation of it. There are probably others. I think the HT has a catenary profile. Vicmarc say theirs is parabolic. There is a slight difference between the catenary and parabolic profile, but in practice you wouldn't notice the difference.



421316


In practice (that is in use at the lathe) there is negligible difference between a strictly V and parabolic profile, but a considerable difference between U & V.

Like you, Ron, I prefer the swept back grind that you can get on the V & parabolic flute profiles.

From memory, the small wing angle on the P&N (first image) won't take a very aggressive swept back grind and behaves more like a U profile.

Any pics and comments from forum members of the grind on their P&N BGs would be most welcome.

[ronboult]

Neil
Here are some photos of the bowl gouges in my collection.

The fist photos are of my Superflute gouges- old ( around 1980-5) and new (2017). The photo is somewhat misleading in that the gouge on the left is my working gouge ground with swept back wings while the gouge on the right is brand new and still ground straight across. In actual fact in real life the newer gouge flute is ground almost identical to the original grind when first manufactured. Measured the flutes are identical but the swept back grind makes the steel at the bottom of the flute LOOK much thicker on the old gouge. ( Both have 5mm thick steel below the flute and are 11m across the top of the flute. However more expensive to now buy in Au now.

421375And from above 421353 And my most used and "worn out Old" Superflute from the side 421361

Since I like "parabolic" flutes I tried to buy some new gouges in more high tech steel.

My next gouge purchases were both made by Doug Thompson tools. Firstly a Thompson 5/8V and an imported Lyle Jamison "Signature gouge" ( Also made by Doug Thompson).
The reason I imported the Jamison gouge is that on Lyles website he states and I quote
"This has a better flute configuration—Not a “V”, not a “U” shape—It is 12 inches long with a 7 inch long flute —It has a wider, parabolic flute shape than any other gouge made today—The flute change translates into easier, safer, better control"
Unfortunately as you can see from the pictures the flute shape of both the Thompson (expected) & Jamison Gouges (Unexpected) are both V flutes and not parabolic.

421354 Thompson on left, Jamison on right. Again the flutes look slightly different, because the length of the wings are different, but are close to identical flute shape.
421355 Jamison above Thompson below.
From the side 421356 Thompson above - Jamison below.

Quite different. It will be interesting to try both these gouges to see how they perform. I have not used either yet and will have to workout the Oneway Jig settings to maintain there shape.


Next are from Hamlet 25mm and 10mm gouges. 421357421358Both very similar but quite different to a Thompson flute in that the sides are more vertical and the bottom of the flute much much more rounded. More a U shaped flute. I am not so keen on these gouges and don't use them very often. The 25mm overkill and is really too large for most of my work.

Ron
PS Sorry for font changes but they seem to happen spontaneously

[brainstrust]

I voted a U, glad I'm not alone now!!! The difference in opinion is starting to make me think it is a hybrid :-

[ronboult]

Neil
Could you please post a clearer picture of the Ellsworth Signature 5/5 Bowl gouge. Its a bit difficult to see the flute profile in your first post
Cheers
Ron

[NeilS]

Neil
Could you please post a clearer picture of the Ellsworth Signature 5/5 Bowl gouge. Its a bit difficult to see the flute profile in your first post
Cheers
Ron

Will do, but I may not get to my workshop tomorrow, so it might be some time before I can do that.

Excellent lot of photos of yours, Ron.

Will post some comments on those profiles when I can later on .

[NeilS]

OK, here are some better photos of the flute on the Ellsworth Sig BG from Crown.


421426 421427


I have two of those, so a photo of each. I would call that flute profile catenary or parabolic.

I also took a close-up of the Woodcut, which I reckon on closer inspection it is also parabolic. So, I looked at their website and they state that this bowl gouge has "a parabolic 'U' shape flute"


421428

This highlights the purpose of this thread. There is not an uniform or agreed terminology for describing flute profiles.

I reckon that all of the flute profiles above on this posting are parabolic, along with the Henry Taylor in my first posting and in Ron's.

As defined by Ron, the U flute profile has parallel sides, with an half circle bottom. Type capital 'U' and you have it.

A V flute profile has straight sides that can be at a variety of angles to one another that form a tangent to a part circular at the bottom of the flute that can be of varying relative diameters to the bar size.

So, the three terms U, V and Parabolic describe three distinct profiles. If only manufacturers and us turners could use these terms more precisely there would be less confusion.

PS - I include catenary and hyperbolic profiles under parabolic, ie the sides are not straight and they have a continuous curve that conforms to some geometric principal (as in conics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section)) or law of physics as is the case with the catenary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catenary)profile

[ronboult]

Thanks for the pictures Neil. Pleased to see that the Crown Ellsworth SG is parabolic. Cant help myself - will just have to try one.
Had a closer look at the new Superflute that I just purchased and was a little dissapointed to observe that the flute is not quite symetrical. Wonder where they are now made?
Are either of your gouges Ellsworth Powder Metal? If so do you think it is an advantage over HSS?
Also are those gouges straight off what grit CBN assuming you are using a CBN wheel?
Ron

[BamBam53]

I have the same P&N bowl gouge. I bought it about 1994 I think. The box it came in describes it as a 16mm bowl gouge M2 HSS. I am not sure how to describe the flute but it works for me.

421432 421434

Michael

[NeilS]

Had a closer look at the new Superflute that I just purchased and was a little dissapointed to observe that the flute is not quite symmetrical.

I have also had to grind a bit off the top of one side of a bowl gouge that I have so that it sits square in my sharpening jig.

Are either of your gouges Ellsworth Powder Metal? If so do you think it is an advantage over HSS?

One definitely is, and another Pro-PM that I have is the poorest performing bowl gouge on my tool rack, so no, I don't think that it is always better or worth the extra $s. Overrated, IMO.

In my experience, the amount of vanadium in the steel alloy (eg 10% or 15%) improves edge durability although it doesn't take as fine an edge as some other steel alloys. Great for hogging off bulk amounts

Not sure what is in the D-way gouges, but they take the finest edge of all of the HSS gouges I have used. Beautiful for doing finishing cuts.

Also, are those gouges straight off what grit CBN assuming you are using a CBN wheel?

Ron, all straight off an 8" Woodriver 120 grit diamond wheel. I also have an 8" 180 grit CBN wheel for reshaping my tools, but despite the lower grit the Woodriver gives a much finer finish and takes off next to no unnecessary metal to give a fresh sharp edge.


.............

[NeilS]

I have the same P&N bowl gouge. I bought it about 1994 I think. The box it came in describes it as a 16mm bowl gouge M2 HSS. I am not sure how to describe the flute but it works for me.

421432 421434

Michael

Thanks for posting, Michael.

Yes, a similar vintage to mine.

Interesting to see the grind you have used.

That P&N M2 HSS is a good performer for the $s.

Sure looks like yours has done a lot more work than mine... :U

[NeilS]

421434



Michael, looking at your P&N it appears to have the grind that is close to the one that it originally came with; ie a more straight across grind. Am I seeing (and remembering) that right?

That straight across grind is typically used on U fluted bowl gouges. Some turners prefer that grind for the inside bottom of bowls and platters.



Sent from my ZTE T84 using Tapatalk

[ronboult]

Neil thanks again for your replies

My first observation was that your Crown Ellsworth gouges have a much wider open flute than the Woodcut perhaps even wider/ open than the Superflute. Do you notice any difference in the wings or how they cut.

The second was that you are using a diamond wheel. I thought (perhaps wrongly) that the general advice was that diamond wheels were not generally recommended for woodturning gouges because of the brittleness of diamonds and their tendacy to shatter and breakdown. One of the reasons that CBN was introduced was because of their toughness

I really appreciate the grinding improvement that occured when I changed to a 180grit CBN from Al oxide but still find the 180 CBN a bit coarse and agressive so was considering a finer CBN for a second wheel. Also considered changing to a slow speed grinder for same reasons.
Maybe I should consider a diamond wheel instead.
Any advice?
Cheers Ron

[NeilS]

My first observation was that your Crown Ellsworth gouges have a much wider open flute than the Woodcut perhaps even wider/ open than the Superflute. Do you notice any difference in the wings or how they cut.

The flute profile on the Woodcut is very similar to the bowl gouge profile in Peter Child's 1970s book, see image followng... so has good pedigree...


421495

The way I turn is to sharpen all of my bowl gouges in batch mode and use them one after the other as each becomes blunt. I can't say that I have notice much difference between any of them other than the Henry Taylor Superflute that has that very wide parabolic flute. It takes a different grind to the others on my standard swept back grind jig setting. It does a good job on the inside of bowls (like a U flute) so I mainly use it for that.

You can see the different grind in the following two photos; the HT is on the right and on the top in the second photo. The wings are shorter.


421497 421496

And, here is the Woodcut (on left and bottom) alongside the HT S-f, both 1/2".


421498 421499

As you can see they are very similar and I don't notice any significant difference between the two in use. If anything, the Woodcut holds an edge for longer.



The second was that you are using a diamond wheel. I thought (perhaps wrongly) that the general advice was that diamond wheels were not generally recommended for woodturning gouges because of the brittleness of diamonds and their tendency to shatter and breakdown. One of the reasons that CBN was introduced was because of their toughness

All I can say is that I have been using my diamond wheel constantly for years now and it has had minimal loss of grit and at the rate I am wearing it down I expect to keep using it for many years yet.



I really appreciate the grinding improvement that occured when I changed to a 180grit CBN from Al oxide but still find the 180 CBN a bit coarse and agressive so was considering a finer CBN for a second wheel. Also considered changing to a slow speed grinder for same reasons.
Maybe I should consider a diamond wheel instead.
Any advice?


Unless you are expecting to sharpen tungsten I would go for a higher grit CBN wheel if you want a higher grit finish. The price of CBN wheels has come down nowadays and they are very good.

I'm not convinced there is any advantage with slower speed grinding on HSS. Different matter if you are grinding high carbon steel blades.

[NeilS]

Apologies (on behalf of the Forum software) for the missing images in that last post.... FIXED NOW, had to upload them again!

Yes, a PITB. It has been very temperamental today! The images were there in preview but not when I posted.

[BamBam53]

Thanks for posting, Michael.

Yes, a similar vintage to mine.

Interesting to see the grind you have used.

That P&N M2 HSS is a good performer for the $s.

Sure looks like yours has done a lot more work than mine... :U

It has not done that much work really. I bought a 16mm and a 10mm at the same time, they both sat unused for 15 years. The 16mm in the photo is dirty from roughing out some green bowls last weekend. I will give it a sharpen and post another photo so the profile is clearer.

I sharpen with a Woodcut Tru Grind jig on an 8 inch 220 grit CBN wheel. The grind is 45 degrees on setting 2 for the arm. I can't remember what the original P&N grind was but I think the wings are swept back a bit more. I have an old Teknatool 12mm bowl gouge ground at 55 degrees straight across and it is brilliant for the bottoms of bowls.

Michael

[NeilS]

...as far as I know first developed by Roy Child and manufactured by Henry Taylor and sold under the Superflute label.



I went back to check on the history of the Superflute and the following webpage chronicles Roy Child's development of it.

http://www.peterchild.co.uk/info1/sflute.htm (http://www.peterchild.co.uk/info1/sflute.htm)

So:


The parabolic (my use of term) flute profile predates the Superflute and was initially forged in high carbon steel. See example from Peter Child's 1970s book in my posting above.



Roy Child developed the profile that was to be later called the Superflute and that was first made by Peter Child & Son and ground and tempered in high carbon steel.



Henry Taylor took over the manufacture of it in M2 HSS and called it the Superflute.



After this the U flute profile, which is a cheaper profile to manufacture, started to be made by various tool makers. Confusingly, it became known as the 'traditional profile'.



The V profile became yet another later development.


Before purpose-made hand forged bowl gouges we turners adapted gouges that were primarily used for spindle work and made more extensive use of scrapers. I started turning in the late sixties and I can say that any bowl gouge of any profile that you can buy now is better that what we had then!

[NeilS]

I am adding a Vicmarc bowl gouge to my arsenal. Just arrived today.

Their site describes it as having a parabolic flute profile. My reading of it is that it is closer to having a catenary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catenary) profile (with a= ~2) than parabolic, but that is a moot point. See earlier posts for the small difference.

For comparisons, its profile is close to that of the Henry Taylor Superflute and Woodcut gouges, profiles that I like.

As received, the following images are of the gouge from end on, top down and oblique view. Also included is a detail photo of the surface grind.

432989432990
432991 432988

I have some opinions about the gouge before using it, but I will reserve any comments until I have modified the grind to my preferred profile and used it.

[ronboult]

High Neil
Waiting to hear your impressions on the Vicmarc gouge. Do you know what type of steel they are made of?Was intrigued by your last cryptic comment.
Ron

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

The finish of the VicMarc flute looks a bit rough. Or is that just the pic? To me it looks like you'll need to do a fair bit of polishing in the flute before you'll manage a reliable edge. (Maybe they bought out some P&N stock? :wink::D)

Personally, I tend to simplify things. Gouges that are pressed from flat stock I label U-flutes. If the flute is milled into solid stock, that's a V-flute. I've yet to see a stamped gouge with a V-flute and I can't think of any milled gouges with U-flutes.

They both probably exist, but I don't own any. Which is fine with me. Keeps my life simple.


I will reserve any comments until I have modified the grind to my preferred profile and used it.

:yes: That's always best. I do like the pressed U-flutes for roughing work but they're sharpened with minimal wings so I can rotate the tool while roughing to 'find fresh edge.'

For final shaping and finishing I've developed my own grind. Basically an ellsworth 'done wrong,' but it works very nicely for me. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much change in the flute profile to make 'my' grind unsuitable so I've sort of backed myself into a corner when it comes to buying new tools to grind to that profile.

Must be time to unlearn some bad habits and re-generalise my skill set... :rolleyes:

[ronboult]

Skew
Since when have HSS gouges been pressed from flat stock?

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Skew
Since when have HSS gouges been pressed from flat stock?

You've never had a chaiwanese HSS-stamped gouge blue semi-unexpectedly while sharpening and then behave exactly as low grade CS from then on? :innocent:

Still, you ask a fair question. As I said prior, I don't have any milled gouges with a U-flute. Some come quite close but on close inspection are actually a catenary curve, hence are V-flutes to me.

[NeilS]

The finish of the VicMarc flute looks a bit rough.

Yes, Andy, it looks rougher than what you would get as a finish on many makes of gouges, but perhaps not quite as rough as the P&Ns. About the same as the Thompsons. I'm yet to polish the flute so won't know how deep those milling/grinding marks are until I've done that. The only flutes I've never had to polish are the D-way (absolutely beautiful flute finish on those) and the Henry Taylor Superflutes. I'll report back on how it went when I've given the end of the flute a polish.

Ron, VM say that the steel they are using is Vandis 10 (see below), also known in the USA as A11. Doug Thompson also uses V10 steel. It's a powdered metal with about 10% vanadium. Doug does a "triple temper with a cryogenic treatment between the first and second temper".

I don't know what VM does on the tempering. Vanadis 10 is a Swedish steel made by Uddeholm. Here is their description:



UDDEHOLM VANADIS® 10 SUPERCLEAN

Uddeholm Vanadis 10 SuperClean is a high vanadium alloyed powder metallurgy tool steel offering a unique combination of an excellent abrasive wear resistance in combination with a good chipping resistance. It is manufactured according to the powder metallurgy process giving a very low amount of non-metallic inclusions.In tool making Uddeholm Vanadis 10 SuperClean offers a good machinability and grindability together with a good dimensional stability during heat treatment. It can normally be hardened to 60–65 HRC.

[NeilS]

I gave the VM bowl gouge a test run with the grind as supplied and, as expected, it was not to my liking.

Keeping in mind that the grind that comes on a new gouge is just a starting point. The makers pick a middle of the road grind that is quick and easy for them to manufacture and the user modifies it from there to suit themselves. The only gouges that came close to my preferred grind as supplied are the Thompsons and I think the reason for that is that Doug Thompson follows the Jerry Glaser 'grind profile guidelines' (more on that later), which I also like.

So, I reground the VM to my preferred grind. The photo on the left is of the grind as supplied. The one on the right has been reground to my preferred grind for this flute profile, except for the 'cheek' of original grind left on the sides, which will diminish with future re-sharpenings. No need to waste steel unnecessarily!


433068 433072

As you can see the new grind gives a sweeter convex curved edge that is more in keeping with its parabolic/catenary flute cross section. I found that the reground VM performed much better on the inside of some bowls, where I find the grind is most critical. Almost any grind will work on the outside of bowls with the bevel rubbing.

Note: Your experience and preferred grind may be very different from mine. Mine may not work for you, but for what it is worth to anyone I will explain more about my preferred grind in a separate posting or thread later.

More comments to come.

[Paul39]

Most interesting and informative thread. Thanks to all.

[NeilS]

Should have mentioned that the remaining thickness of the steel at the bottom of the flute on this VM (5/8" bowl gouge) is about 6.5mm.

In comparison with other gouges with a similar flute profile, this is on the thicker side with the Henry Taylor having 5.5mm and the Woodcut 7mm. I should also measure the Ellsworth signature gouge that has a very open parabolic/catenary flute to see how that compares with the others.

I mention this as I find that this variation in thickness does have some effect on how the bevel rubs through the 'transition area' inside a bowl.

[ronboult]

Hi Neil
Thanks for the updates.

Two Q if I may.
You have obviously tried quite a few different bowl gouges. Do you have any views on which steel produces the sharpest edge and which has the longest lasting edge.

Secondly I have recently purchased the Hannes sharpening jig which if used like recommended produces a very narrow primary bevel and a rounded off heel. Have you tried this type of grind?
Cheers
Ron

[NeilS]

Hi Neil
Thanks for the updates.

Two Q if I may.
You have obviously tried quite a few different bowl gouges. Do you have any views on which steel produces the sharpest edge and which has the longest lasting edge.

Secondly I have recently purchased the Hannes sharpening jig which if used like recommended produces a very narrow primary bevel and a rounded off heel. Have you tried this type of grind?
Cheers
Ron

High carbon steel produces the sharpest edge, but it lasts so briefly on a bowl gouge that it isn't an option for us woodturners. Although, that is all we had and used before HSS gouges became available. I still have quite a few in my bottom drawer.

Of the HSS bowl gouges that I have used the D-way takes the sharpest edge. It's my go-to gouge for finishing cuts. In a side-by-side test I ran a few years ago it didn't keep its sharp edge quite as long as gouges made with high vanadium steels, especially on the hardwoods we have here in Australia, but the D-way is a Formula 1 gouge that I don't use to do my hackwork. You don't plow the back paddock with a Ferrari! Having said that, if I could only have one gouge it would probably be a D-way. It is made from a high cobalt M-42 steel. Other makers also use this steel (including Henry Taylor, Hamlet Crown and Carter & Son), but I haven't used any of them so can't comment on how they compare.

For durability it depends on the job.

If a piece of wood is extremely hard, or full of nails, screws or stones, then carbide tips are going to get you through it without spending more time at the grinder resharpening than turning. But, I still do the finishing cut with HSS as they give a much better finishing cut.

But for majority of woods, I found through testing (stop watch, etc) that powdered metal V15 is the most durable HSS steel. It doesn't take as keen an edge as the other steels (probably to do with size of carbides) but it keeps on cutting (in a fashion) long after all of the other steels have given up. It is the gouge that I start with on most pieces. As far as I know, Thompson & Glaser Hitec are the only two makers that have used PM15V steel in their gouges. Doug Thompson doesn't appear to list them on his website anymore, but he may make them to order. In the case of Glaser Hitec, make sure you are sitting down before you look at the prices for their 15V gouges!

Having said all of that, there isn't a big difference between the quality of the steels used by the well known makers. Claims of a particular steel or heat treatment being 5 times better than M2 are not justified, even 2x better is a stretch. Getting a flute profile that suits you and a grind to match is going to be far more important IMO.

Hope that is of some help, Ron.

PS - Back when I was using the Heli-Grind sharpening jig on the P&N gouges when they first came out I added an extra heel bevel to those. I haven't found it necessary to do this with any of the newer gouges. Some turners, like Robo Hippy (Reed Gray), do it as standard practice on their bottom gouges. The Henry Taylor M42 Stay Sharp gouge comes with a ground heel, so some are doing it out there.

[ronboult]

Hi Neil

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed reply to my Q's. Much appreciated. Provides much needed info.

I am just a weekend woodturner with admittedly around 50 yrs experience. That doesn't mean that I can't appreciate high quality Tools and Machinery. Also as a scientist I also can't help myself from wanting to understand and asking WHY & HOW when presented with new info.

My original Turning tools were Sorby forged tools bought in the 60's & 70's. I was then fortunate to obtain one of the earliest Superfutes ( Now only a stub) and was introduced to HSS. More recently I have acquired a new Superflute, two Hamlet ASP & HSS, and two Thomson V10 V flutes. As you can see my experience is limited hence the Q's. With these new gouges I have been experimenting with Fingernail Grinds. ( my original training was with Traditional straight across grinds)

I have both a GPW copy of the Oneway Varigrind and an Unijig. More recently I bought a Hannes grinding jig but haven't yet used it.

As you well know there a three seperate adjustments you can make on the first two jigs. In combination with flute shape and how much you grind the various areas of the wings you can achieve a myriad of different grinds- some radical and some more subtle.

When you think about it, when you grind wings on a bowl gouge you not only set the nose angle ( say 60 deg) but you can also vary the included angle of the wing side grind from very acute to less acute. This included angle is also influenced by the Flute shape. Because of the wing and curved flute shape the wing cutting angle is actually difficult to measure but the difference is easy to see as you move to the extremes.

As I understand it David indicates that his Ellsworth grind produces a constant 60deg angle from the nose around onto the wings and this is what gives his gouge and grind its particular characteristics that he prefers. However I don't have a genuine Ellsworth gouge to compare. Also as I understand David's grind, the higher you make the wings ( which makes the included angle more acute) the more aggressive is the grind, particularly for dry wood.

Recently in my inquisitive way I have been experimenting with the various settings on the Varigrind and can confirm that you can easily change the acuteness of the wings compared to the nose. What effect this has on the performance of the gouge is my next task.

Cheers
Ron

[NeilS]

Ron, thanks for your above post on gouges, grinds and jigs.

These are topics that could each have a thread of their own. I'm in two minds whether we should expand the discussion here in this thread on those topics that are, IMO, inextricably related to flute profiles or spin them off to a separate thread or threads.

Perhaps for the benefit of those searching by topic in the future we should start a new thread under the topic Gouges, grinds and jigs. Would you like to kick that off? If you think appropriate, you could include a link back to this thread on flute profiles where applicable.

[NeilS]

....the steel at the bottom of the flute on this VM (5/8" bowl gouge) is about 6.5mm.

In comparison with other gouges with a similar flute profile, this is on the thicker side with the Henry Taylor having 5.5mm and the Woodcut 7mm.

I should also measure the Ellsworth signature gouge that has a very open parabolic/catenary flute to see how that compares with the others.



I went back and measured the thickness of the steel at the bottom of the Ellsworth and it is similar to that of the Henry Taylor at 5.25mm.

As I mention earlier, I find that this thickness has an effect on how the bevel rubs through the 'transition area' inside a bowl. The thinner this area of steel, the shorter the bevel will be in the tip area and, for the way I turn, the better it will rub and arc through the transition area. The longer bevel may not be an issue for other turners and their technique or can be modified. A secondary bevel on the heel, as used by some turners and on the Henry Taylor M42 Stay Sharp gouge as it comes, can overcome this if it is an issue for you.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

As I mention earlier, I find that this thickness has an effect on how the bevel rubs through the 'transition area' inside a bowl. The thinner this area of steel, the shorter the bevel will be in the tip area and, for the way I turn, the better it will rub and arc through the transition area. The longer bevel may not be an issue for other turners and their technique or can be modified

:yes:

While I like the shorter bevels, I find that it depends on the size of the bowl and the radius of the inner curve as to how long a bevel feels comfortable.

I also prefer the wings swept back about 60 degrees but, depending on the flute profile, this needs to change to keep the side profile of the cutting edge from becoming too extreme one way or t'other. (ie. bird-beak or cadillac fins.) Due to this I've become a fan of the D. Thompsons, due to both the steel content and the flute profile easily grinding to the shape I prefer.

Anyways, the point of this is that as a result I have quite a few Thompson's of different sizes, giving me a selection of my profile with different tip bevel lengths to suit whatever curve I'm working on.

I dislike switching between gouges with slightly different grinds for finishing cuts as I find that one can easily make a mistake when, eg. sheer- or back-cutting with a wing on one, then switching gouges and misjudging the required angle on the new one. Way too many unrecoverable catches lay down that path for me!

[NeilS]

Yesterday I ground out the 'tracks' from the bottom of the VM gouge flute. I started and spent most of the effort with #80 grit and did a bit of a cleanup with finer grits after the #80 had removed the tracks.


433148 433147 433146


The first photo is of the deep milling tracks before the #80. The second photo was after 1 hour with the #80. Third photo is of smooth flute at 2 hours.

Those tracks were the worst I have worked on and deeper than any of the P&Ns I have cleaned up.

If you have a diamond hone with a profile that matches the flute that will speedup the process, just don't be tempted to run a rotary diamond burr across the flute as that will create its own problems.

I only worked on the first 25mm at the end of the flute. Two hours is quite an investment of time. This needs to be taken into account when considering the relative cost of gouges. The value of your time vs $s will be different equation for each turner.

Why grind out the tracks? If left, those tracks would have considerably weakened the edge and reduced its sharpness at the most critical area of the tip, as well as increasing the frequency of having to go back to resharpen.

[NeilS]

:yes:

While I like the shorter bevels, I find that it depends on the size of the bowl and the radius of the inner curve as to how long a bevel feels comfortable.

I also prefer the wings swept back about 60 degrees but, depending on the flute profile, this needs to change to keep the side profile of the cutting edge from becoming too extreme one way or t'other. (ie. bird-beak or cadillac fins.) Due to this I've become a fan of the D. Thompsons, due to both the steel content and the flute profile easily grinding to the shape I prefer.

Anyways, the point of this is that as a result I have quite a few Thompson's of different sizes, giving me a selection of my profile with different tip bevel lengths to suit whatever curve I'm working on.

I dislike switching between gouges with slightly different grinds for finishing cuts as I find that one can easily make a mistake when, eg. sheer- or back-cutting with a wing on one, then switching gouges and misjudging the required angle on the new one. Way too many unrecoverable catches lay down that path for me!

All good points, Andy.

[NeilS]

Now that the flute tip of this gouge has been ground smooth, the one remaining thing to do is test out the durability of the edge. This is something that has to be done over time as it is not until a gouge has been resharpened many times that you can know that you are working with the steel that represents the heat treatment for of the majority of the blade. The metal on the very tip of a new gouge can be tempered differently (softer or harder) to the remainder of the gouge and it is not until that has been ground away that you know what you have from there on.

I will report back when I get down the blade a bit.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Those tracks were the worst I have worked on and deeper than any of the P&Ns I have cleaned up.

I thought they looked bad!


I only worked on the first 25mm at the end of the flute. Two hours is quite an investment of time. This needs to be taken into account when considering the relative cost of gouges. The value of your time vs $s will be different equation for each turner.

Why grind out the tracks? If left, those tracks would have considerably weakened the edge and reduced its sharpness at the most critical area of the tip, as well as increasing the frequency of having to go back to resharpen.

Considering that the cutting edge is the junction of the bevel and flute, as long as the flute has any ridges or grooves you will not get a good edge; it'll be either saw- or snaggle-toothed.

One should consider time spent on polishing a new tools flute to be just as important an aspect of preparing a new tool as one considers choosing a handle or the initial sharpening profile. Sometimes one is lucky with a tool and it's only a minor polish. Other times, well... you have a prime example. Luck of the draw and all that.

Personally I like to polish as much of the flute as I estimate being 'usable' so I only have to do it once per tool lifetime... otherwise the lazies kick in and I tend to 'put up with' a bad cutting edge - once I grind back that far - for far too long before I get around to repolishing. :B

ie. It's worth spending the time.

[NeilS]

I will report back when I get down the blade a bit.



Rather than waiting to grind the tip back over time I decided to just grind
10mm off the tip of the Vicmarc bowl gouge and re-profile it (I will report on that separately). My report on the durability of the edge after doing that can be found here (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f8/vs-thompson-gouge-146860/2#post2080717) in a thread where I have reported previously on the durability of some other bowl gouges.

[NeilS]

OK, in summary, this is what I thought of the Vicmarc bowl gouge:

Pros:



Now that P&N is going/has gone, this gouge is competitively priced among the unhandled options (shop around).
It has a good wide parabolic (catenary) flute profile if you like this style, as many of us do.
The powdered metal vanadium 10% steel held up well in a demanding edge durability test, even on our toughest Australian hardwoods.
It is good to have another Australian made tool, although the steel is probably made off shore (?).


Cons:



The finish on the flute profile was less than ordinary (see photos in posts above). Gouges from Thompson & P&N have needed to be further polished, with the P&Ns being hard work at times to get them up to full performance, but the finish on this gouge was the worst I have experienced, taking close to 2 hours of hand grinding to get 1" of the flute into a satisfactory condition. Power grinding would have reduced the time required, however, that comes with risks. Price and finish are a trade off, but the surface finish on the flute is not just a matter of cosmetics; a finish on the the flute that is at least as fine as your re-grinding wheel is critical to the performance of the gouge.
The bevel grind profile, as supplied, on the gouge was in my opinion an unsatisfactory starting point for many turners. Yes, it should only be a starting point and would not be an issue for experienced turners who are confident about the grinds they use, but my concern is for the novice turners who often struggle to get a satisfactory grind on their bowl gouges in the beginning stages of their turning. IMO, the grind on the gouge as supplied was unhelpful for these users, which I will expand on more detail in my next post that I hope to get to later today or tomorrow morning.

[Paul39]

The finish on the flute profile was less than ordinary (see photos in posts above). Gouges from Thompson & P&N have needed to be further polished, with the P&Ns being hard work at times to get them up to full performance, but the finish on this gouge was the worst I have experienced, taking close to 2 hours of hand grinding to get 1" of the flute into a satisfactory condition. Power grinding would have reduced the time required, however, that comes with risks. Price and finish are a trade off, but the surface finish on the flute is not just a matter of cosmetics; a finish on the the flute that is at least as fine as your re-grinding wheel is critical to the performance of the gouge.

As Vicmarc has a reputation for making high quality equipment, I wonder if this one slipped passed their quality assurance people. All the gouges I have, Crown, Thompson, Sorby, even Chinese made Bodger by Penn State Industries are better finished than your VM. All mine appear to have a ground flute and only need a little honing with some rolled up 320 or 400 grit on the inside to be nice and slick.

Have you sent them a photo as delivered and asked if that is their usual quality?

The VM bowl gouge shown here is much smoother than yours: Vicmarc 1/2 Inch Bowl Gouge (http://www.garypye.com/Vicmarc-1-2-Bowl-Gouge-p700.html) put the cursor over the photo for detail.

[NeilS]

Back to my gripe about the bevel grind as supplied on the Vicmarc.

I look for two things on the initial grind that comes on a gouge, regardless of the nose angle or its flute profile:


The tip of the gouge as viewed from above looking down on the flute matches (ie it is a mirror image of) the the flute profile as viewed from the end.
The edge running up from the tip to the wings form a convex curve when viewed from the side (in elevation).

If a novice turner gets a bowl gouge that comes with a grind like this they have an excellent chance of quickly learning how to master the gouge and to resharpen it so it performs at its optimum. What they do later to modify the grind when they have become experienced turners will then be based on a sound point of departure to which they can return as a reference point. Experienced turners can look after themselves. It's the novices that are my concern.

Here is the above and end view of the grind on the Vicmarc bowl gouge (the two views juxtaposed) as it came.


433642

That is looking more like an chook egg than a mirror image.

The side view shows a straight (maybe even slightly concave) edge profile. Here it is.


433643


That is not a grind profile that we should be putting into the hands of a novices. I'm not alone in thinking this. I will expand on this in a separate thread.

I reground the gouge edge to the following convex profile and it started to behave much better.



433644


And, here is the end and above view of the reground profile with the two views juxtaposed. Not perfect, but very close to a mirror image.



433645


That is a better starting point for a gouge with that flute profile. I would be far more confident in putting it into the hands of a novice turner and know the grind won't be working against them from the start.

I will adapt it a bit from there for my own use to my preferred grind (with more swept back wings), but the tip and most of the grind will remain like this in keeping with its parabolic/catenary flute profile.

As mentioned, I will start another thread with support for my views on this. And, if you have alternative views we can explore those there.

[Paul39]

http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=433643&d=1523698763&thumb=1 (http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=433643&d=1523698763)

That is not a grind profile that we should be putting into the hands of a novices. I'm not alone in thinking this. I will expand on this in a separate thread.

I reground the gouge edge to the following convex profile and it started to behave much better.


http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=433644&d=1522979088&thumb=1



The above is most interesting, which I never have considered. The straight or concave grind would cut on the tip or the back and probably be unstable on the inside of the bowl. The convex grind would fit the inside better and cut in the middle of the grind.

I need to have a look at my bowl gouges. I have been using a wolverine jig and just stick the gouge in it to the mark on my lathe bed, give a swipe on the grinder and keep cutting.

I don't know why this is underlined, I can't make it stop.
(http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=433644&d=1523699558)