Don McConnell wrote:
> 
> Upon reading Bill's message and looking at his photos I decided to
> take a closer look at the cross-section portion of the patent
> drawings. Magnified four times at fairly high resolution, it appears
> that the face bevel is angled so that there is a reasonable shaving
> aperture ("mouth") as the cutting edge sits above the internal arris of
> the bevel. It would appear that the intent was for the shaving aperture
> to close as the blade, and cutting edge, is rotated toward the outside
> arris of the bevel.
> 
> Though, since the blade is rotating through an arc and the face bevel
> is flat, the shaving aperture would actually open up for the first
> portion of the rotation. Then begin to close as the rotation continues.

True, but the actual shaving clearance is still a function of the
distance between the inside of the blade and the leading edge of the
body bevel.  If there is no slope there will appear to be clearance when
the cutting edge is in the middle of the body bevel, but there won't be
enough clearance to eject the shaving behind.  Do you agree?

Others have commented that the key to the operation of this shave is to
minimize the size of the bevel on the inside of the blade.  I agree with
this.  From my earlier post you will note I got really turned around
when at first I put a micro bevel on the outside of the blade.  

I have no idea why I thought this would be an exceptional tool, but I
did.  I'm thinking now I should just adjust my expectations.  People
complain about poor quality in hand planes.  IMHO, hand plane problems
don't have anywhere near the number of problem variations as spoke
shaves.  Spoke shave design seems to vary from 'simply cannot work' to
incredibly silky smooth hanging shavings.
> 
> Based on that, *theoretically*, it would appear that a slow arc to
> the face bevel would provide a more uniform closing of the shaving
> aperture as the blade rotates toward the outer arris. To repeat,
> theoretically.
> 
> If I understand Bill's description and photos accurately, it would
> seem that the face bevel on his shave is incorrectly manufactured.
> 
> This discussion has caused me to also take another look at my
> Kelly reproduction circular shave. I have been able to make it work,
> but have never been quite satisfied with it. What I'm now noticing,
> is that the inside arc of the cutter is *slightly* slower than the
> arc of the body of the shave.
> 
> The result of this is that the cutter is tight to the body where the
> screws are holding it down, but there is a very small gap between
> the cutter and the body at the edges. Including the cutting edge. I
> haven't attempted to correct this, yet, but mention it in case Ted's
> difficulties may be arising from the same source.
> 
> Don McConnell
> Knox County, Ohio
> 
> Archive: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/
> To unsubscribe or change options, use the web interface:
>     http://galoots.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=oldtools

-- 
Bill W.
Woodworkers visit me at:
http://Highland_House.tripod.com