Thread: Saw Vice Build 2

Originally Posted by Heavansabove

I notice that the saw files are Smooth, not 2nd Cut. I understand that XX slim will not be made, but the X Slim are pretty good with smaller saws, or at least the one I tried.

Smooth is actually just my interpretation, compared to an Engineer's file Peter, so I'd say they are 2nd cut (like, I didn't actually know there were 3 grades of single cut files until looking through this thread and the Pferd site).

What Ian and I have discussed is using the Batard Needle for roughing the teeth, and then maybe a quick go with a 2nd Cut (Mi-Doux), before moving on to the Smooth Needle (Doux). I'm very keen to see what finish the Doux gives because they are super fine even though they are double cut, to the point where two of the testers said they were useless, because they didn't do much - i.e. they were expecting far more material removal than they got - I think it likely they were used to coarser Needle files, and these got a bum rap in those two cases because of that. I didn't include any coarser needle files in the test circuit. I would imagine that the Doux are equivalent to a 0 or maybe even 00.

OTOH, Claw Hama was stoked with the Hook (aka Sword or Featheredge) Doux Needle. He used it to give his Japanese pull saw a touch up, and was exceptionally pleased with the result. This is a guy who has been classically trained in filing techniques twice in two different apprenticeships.

Peter, there is another aspect of Extra-Slim and Double Extra Slim that I haven't quite wrapped my head around (sorry about the minor hijack Paul, but files seem to be contentious for most people - very few happy campers). If the only difference is the face width I can't for the life of me see the need for DESTs, especially given that they are a little more expensive - the damn thing still goes into the same gullets - kust not as far up the face (% wise). OR are you going to tell me that there should be a difference in the corner sharpness between EST and DEST?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

OR are you going to tell me that there should be a difference in the corner sharpness between EST and DEST?

Brett, yes, there is a difference.

This is only really an issue with with high ppi filing, say 12ppi and higher (mind, I cannot see anything much above 12ppi!). All files are 60 degree angle, so the only* difference is the sharpness of the edge. The edge [American Pattern] becomes sharper as you go - BOTH - shorter in length [10" to 3"] AND narrower in width - from Regular [there is/was Coarse - never actually seen one] to XX Slim. Note that Swiss Pattern (not necessarily Swiss made) files do not follow this pattern - confused yet? I think there are Vallorbe files made in both patterns.

I have a 10" Regular saw file, I have no idea where I would use this monster, not on hand saws anyway!

Cheers
Peter
* there is a difference in the coarseness of the teeth, but this is probably not a major concern for saw filing

Originally Posted by Heavansabove

* there is a difference in the coarseness of the teeth, but this is probably not a major concern for saw filing

Yes, now that you mention it, I read that in the Pferd cattlledog this arvo. How good is that for speed of forgetting eh? Wouldna been more than 90 minutes.

So obviously the files blanks all start the same (but different dimensions), and an edge is an edge is an edge, but when cut with higher tpi (the file) they are clearly not as deep a cut either - therefore the edge retains more of its original sharpness. By Gorge, I think he's got it!

Noooo problem learning about files ...

This is from an old page, maybe from a Nicholson catalogue? Disston No. 77 and Acme 120

Chart From Nicholson on which file to use on a saw:
5, 5 1/2 pts: 7" taper
6 pts: 7" or 8" slim taper
7 pts: 6" or 7" slim taper
8 pts: 6" slim, 7" X slim, or 8" XX slim
9 pts: 6" X slim, or 7" XX slim
10 pts: 5" or 6" X slim
11 pts: 5" X slim, or 6" XX slim
12 pts: 5" X slim
13, 14 pts: 5" XX slim
15, 16 pts: 4" X slim

Regarding corners ... I have Wiltshire 4" 3-square and 4" Slim-taper ... so I thought I'd compare them ...

DSCF0770.jpg DSCF0775.jpg DSCF0780.jpg

This hit a snag when I thought I'd get another 3-sqr out so the photo could have the profile stamp and the Australia stamp. The top file in the 3-sqr box was a "heavy-taper" (single-cut like the slim-taper) ... and the rest were the 3-sqr files (which are double-cut).

DSCF0782.jpg DSCF0783.jpg DSCF0785.jpg

...even if they do keep swapping their terminology around (ultra slim = double extra slim, depending on what page you're on), and even if they say "Cuts = 2" when they mean 2nd Cut (did they mean 2 Cuts per mm or summint, I'm thinking??).

Now boys, don't get excited about thinking all these files are available in Oz - I reckon there'd be 10% of the range MAX available here. However, this is the Pferd range of Sharpening Files:



This is a great page - read all of it:




A couple of quotes from it:
1. At a length of 250 mm, a cut 1 (Bastard) file has 9 teeth/cm. A 100 mm long file of the same
cut has 17 teeth/cm of file length. The higher number of teeth found on shorter files is
intended to provide the same ease of use (in terms of force input, guidability and stock removal)
on surfaces and edges as a longer tool.

2. For a double-cut file, the teeth number is determined by the upper cut (second course).

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

A couple of quotes from it:
1. At a length of 250 mm, a cut 1 (Bastard) file has 9 teeth/cm. A 100 mm long file of the same
cut has 17 teeth/cm of file length. The higher number of teeth found on shorter files is
intended to provide the same ease of use (in terms of force input, guidability and stock removal)
on surfaces and edges as a longer tool.

On the other hand, I must say that this seems like a damned fool reason for comparison. I mean, obviously we expect that two very different files will have different levels of force required. So what - who cares about ease of use comparisons? I would have thought that the purchaser or user would be able to make a better choice if they were able to compare the surface finish left, and that that should be the basis of comparison (which would come down to tpi and....well, tpi..

That is to say, surely if the tpi is the same on two different sized files, then wouldn't the finish be the same? (assuming the amplitude of the teeth, or depth of gullet, was the same, as I'm quite sure it would have to be)

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

2. For a double-cut file, the teeth number is determined by the upper cut (second course).

Ah, what? The two layers of cuts are different tpi??

We should either rename this thread, extract this discussion on files & give it its own thread, or move the last few posts to one of the threads on files (there was one a year or so back that could benefit by adding the last half dozen posts or more). There's too much good info that will be hard to find in future for most of us (except you, Paul! ).

I wish manufacturers would get together and sort out their basic nomenclature, and then stick to it. Matt, I don't think your definition of '3-square' stacks up, I have catalogue references to both singe & double cut triangular files as '3 square'. I have always taken '3-square' to mean that the file is an equilateral triangle in section as opposed to the isosceles triangle of other types of triangular files. I do agree with Brett that even the manufacturer's explanation of tooth pitch on files is a bit back-assed - of course you apply more pressure with the same force on a smaller area, but dammit, why can't they just give us the tpi of the files & be done with it! Let us work out which will give us the surface we want, & which pitch will deliver it, since it varies with the material being filed anyway. It took me years to realise that the terms 'bastard', '2nd' and 'smooth' were relative, and mean different numbers of tpi according to the size of the file (), and that 'double cut' and '2nd cut' are not the same thing, but I suppose an amateur who buys a few different files a year is bound to be a slow learner unless someone enlightens them! It's not helped at all by the erratic stocking policy of most urban hardware stores - not only do they stock a given length irregularly, but it's pot luck which cut you'll get in any given month. You have to go to the big stores like Blackwoods to get any particular size & cut reliably.

Which gets me back to saw files. Although it's a good working theory, I don't think it's just a matter of finer tooth pitch giving you sharper corners, Brett. You could have equally sharp corners no matter what the tooth pitch, in theory, but it would be like trying to saw veneer with a 3.5 tpi ripsaw if you had sharp corners & coarse pitch on a saw file. The sharp corners are more fragile, as someone has already pointed out, so someone has figured out a compromise, and rounded them off with increasing size of file, to a degree appropriate to the gullet size. What annoys me is that modern manufacturers seem to have lost the art of maintaining the required consistency of corner radius, not just from batch to batch, but even within batches, to judge by what we've seen lately! It's not that big a deal with saws of around 12 tpi & coarser, but it becomes a damned nuisance with saws of 15 tpi & finer.

Finally - I am interested in what this 'doux' file will do for me (an amusing bit of linguistic idiom - the word is usually translated into English as 'soft' - I hope the file itself isn't! ). I do find that the one fault with the Vallorbe needle files is that the finest cut easily obtainable is the #4. These are also double-cut, so the surface they leave is a little rougher compared with a single cut file of similar pitch. I'm not sure it's a huge problem, but am curious to know if a super-smooth saw tooth will make a noticeable difference to either smoothness of operation or edge durability.......

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Finally - I am interested in what this 'doux' file will do for me (an amusing bit of linguistic idiom - the word is usually translated into English as 'soft' - I hope the file itself isn't! ).

Well, let's just hope the "Doux" doesn't turn out to be a "douche".

Originally Posted by IanW

....but am curious to know if a super-smooth saw tooth will make a noticeable difference to either smoothness of operation or edge durability.......

At the very least Ian, you would expect a sharper edge to stay sharp longer, even if it doesn't make the cutting any easier. That, in itself, would be a benefit. Better hurry back to Brissie so we don't pee ourselves.

Originally Posted by IanW

We should either rename this thread, extract this discussion on files & give it its own thread, or move the last few posts to one of the threads on files (there was one a year or so back that could benefit by adding the last half dozen posts or more). There's too much good info that will be hard to find in future for most of us (except you, Paul! ).

Yep, good idea Ian. I'm going to start writing up a new thread, and will trawl through a few that I still have on subscription to consolidate as much info as possible, and take it from there. I'll put a link to it in here when it's posted.

In the mean time I suggest we still keep posting away in here - keep those thoughts a'comin' (It might take me a day or two to consolidate), and perhaps Ian can then go back and delete some posts so that Paul can get back to his Saw Vice theme.

Originally Posted by IanW;

Matt, I don't think your definition of '3-square' stacks up, I have catalogue references to both singe & double cut triangular files as '3 square'.

Finally - I am interested in what this 'doux' file will do for me (an amusing bit of linguistic idiom - the word is usually translated into English as 'soft' - I hope the file itself isn't! ).

Did I have a theory about 3 square files? Or is there another Matt? Perfectly possible, I always complained to my folks that Matt wasn't a name just a term for male born in the 70's

Sorry this is boring but, 'doux' (in my not entirely expert experience) does certainly mean 'soft' but usually in sense of sweet, gentle, mild, smooth. In the sense of hardness, i.e. not hard, 'mou' is probably more applicable.

The other Matt

Originally Posted by Berlin

In the sense of hardness, i.e. not hard, 'mou' is probably more applicable.

Cool. So what we don't want is a mou douche doux?

Originally Posted by IanW

I wish manufacturers would get together and sort out their basic nomenclature, and then stick to it. Matt, I don't think your definition of '3-square' stacks up, I have catalogue references to both singe & double cut triangular files as '3 square'. I have always taken '3-square' to mean that the file is an equilateral triangle in section as opposed to the isosceles triangle of other types of triangular files.

Ian, there is inevitably sloppy language in this day and age. However I don't recall seeing any triangular files that are not equilateral, other than cant files. I must check more catalogues...

The 1909 Marples Catalogue has four types of saw taper files from <3.5" to 14"! And in 4 cuts - 2nd cut single / 2nd cut double / Smooth single / Smooth double. So we have lost a bit of range over time.

Originally Posted by IanW

Which gets me back to saw files. Although it's a good working theory, I don't think it's just a matter of finer tooth pitch giving you sharper corners, Brett. You could have equally sharp corners no matter what the tooth pitch, in theory, but it would be like trying to saw veneer with a 3.5 tpi ripsaw if you had sharp corners & coarse pitch on a saw file. The sharp corners are more fragile, as someone has already pointed out, so someone has figured out a compromise, and rounded them off with increasing size of file, to a degree appropriate to the gullet size. What annoys me is that modern manufacturers seem to have lost the art of maintaining the required consistency of corner radius, not just from batch to batch, but even within batches, to judge by what we've seen lately! It's not that big a deal with saws of around 12 tpi & coarser, but it becomes a damned nuisance with saws of 15 tpi & finer.

As an earlier msg noted, 3 Square American Pattern (AP) files are not cut on the edge, hence are as sharp as they left the blank making stage - as saw files are cut on the edge, there must be some "rounding over" of the sharp edge. This means(?) that 3 square files do not really cut the bottom of the gullet (there are no teeth there), unlike saw files. AND needle files, Swiss Pattern (SP), are single cut on the edge, and therefore do cut the bottom of the gullet. Now I do not know whether Liogier needle files are cut on the edge or not - I am interested to find out [the edges were single cut in the Nicholson 1942 Catalog]. All this might be helped if the word "cut" was used in one sense only!

Originally Posted by IanW

Finally - I am interested in what this 'doux' file will do for me (an amusing bit of linguistic idiom - the word is usually translated into English as 'soft' - I hope the file itself isn't! ). I do find that the one fault with the Vallorbe needle files is that the finest cut easily obtainable is the #4. These are also double-cut, so the surface they leave is a little rougher compared with a single cut file of similar pitch. I'm not sure it's a huge problem, but am curious to know if a super-smooth saw tooth will make a noticeable difference to either smoothness of operation or edge durability.......

If all the forum threads on files (here and elsewhere) were put together there might be an interesting book - Slav is threatening to write one. Likewise saw making and sharpening, I believe Lost Art Press are bringing out a book (with companion DVD) on this topic, probably next year. Ray and Ian might be able to get in earlier with a racy tome.

Cheers
Peter

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

On the other hand, I must say that this seems like a damned fool reason for comparison. I mean, obviously we expect that two very different files will have different levels of force required.

Maybe this is an age old standard practice in the file/rasp world ... I'm sure within 6 or 7 months I could think up a woodworking analogy.

Reading from the Pferd page, regular taper 10" and 5" ... (A) = 18mm wide @ 14t/cm. (B) = 10mm @ 19t/cm.

Then in a 1cm push of each, total tooth contact for A -> 18 x 14= 252mm of toothing. B -> 10 x 19 = 190mm of toothing.

If A had 19t/cm same as B you would contact 18 x 19 = 342mm of teeth instead of 190mm ... so presumably twice as hard to push.

So ... under the regime stated in the Pferd catalogue, I guess the thinking is that each file you use will require about the same technique to wield it, and you go with shorter files for improved finish surface.

Ah, what? The two layers of cuts are different tpi??

They said only that they count tpi by the top layer ... but I guess it's possible ... maybe even mandatory ... to have different pitches

'cos if you had the same pitch both ways I think you would get a regularly varying interaction pattern, similar to corrugations on a road. I suspect over the length of the file that they might have one large prime number of teeth one way and another large prime number of teeth the other way.

Cheers,
Paul

Also ... am I comfused here

- When Pferd say "Cut=2" they are referring to a level of coarseness or smoothness, I think.

- but "Double Cut" and "2nd Cut" I take to mean two crossing sets of teeth - like on my 3-square files.