OldTools Archive

Recent Search Bios FAQ

6005 "Bryan Carbonnell" <recsmgmt@t...> 1996‑09‑16 Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
Galoots,

I have a very serious warning about the D&S Scary Sharp (tm)System!!

It works only TOO WELL!! I SSed my chisels on the weekend and in the 
process of testing how sharp they were I managed to put two 1/2" long 
cuts in the palm of my hand. Interesingly enough the cuts are exactly 
1" apart, cut we tell which chisel did this? :-)

I sharpened them because I started making a counter for a girlfriend 
of SWMBO who is opening a clothing store. While doing this I managed 
to get EIGHT cuts in one finger and NEVER felt any of them. Right now 
I would count the number of cuts on the one hand but I can't count 
that high. Needless to say my hand looks like, well, a hand that has 
been introduced to the Scary Sharp (tm) system.

I am heading to Lee Valley Tools to get their carvers gloves, you 
know the ones with KEVLAR fibers in them, to keep all my fingers 
attached.

Now should I sick my lawyers on Steve, for creating this monster, of 
John for publishing it??  Naw, I'll just sick SWMBO and my mommy on 
them! :-))

Just be careful with SS. IT IS INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- 
Bryan Carbonnell
recsmgmt@t...
My opinions, no one elses!!


6009 Don Berry <berry@c...> 1996‑09‑16 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
Bryan Carbonnell just wrote:

> I have a very serious warning about the D&S Scary Sharp (tm)System!!



> Just be careful with SS. IT IS INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Others have written similar "warnings" (more like sharpening
epiphanies) in the recent past.

On the one hand, I'm glad to see that lots of new folks have found
a way to sharpen their edge tools to an appropriate level of keenness.

OTOH....   Bah, humbug!  SS just ain't all that special.  It is
reasonbly convenient if one hasn't already obtained a basic set
of stones and some means for buffing/polishing, but it's not
as if takes your irons and chisels into a a new range of sharpeness
previously unknown outside of Tibet.

Plus, as John DeLapp will no doubt remind us shortly, a blade that
sharp won't last long in many applications (but a super sharp blade
can't be beat for other things like paring chisels and smoother irons.)

Again, I've got nothing against SS: I've been using carbide paper glued
to glass for years for various things (including sole lapping, forgive me
Patrick. ;)   So, I'm happy people are finding new ways to sharpen
their edge tools, but I'm getting just a tad bored with the "I have seen 
the light" testimonials.

Sorry if this came off as a flame towards you, Bryan; that was not
intended.   

O.K., time to get some coffee into my veins before I kill someone.

-Don Berry

PS "The wrong side."

PPS (the PS was for the folks who mentally asked the question, "Which
    side of the bed did HE wake up on?")


6014 James Foster x2912 <jaf@h...> 1996‑09‑16 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
|> 
|> I am heading to Lee Valley Tools to get their carvers gloves, you 
|> know the ones with KEVLAR fibers in them, to keep all my fingers 
|> attached.
|> 

Well, first off, just think how better and careful a carver you'd
be if you'd started off with sharp tools in the first place! B^) B^)

Second, I've been wondering about the effectiveness of kevlar based
gloves/whatever for protection against sharp tools. One of the main
weaknesses of kevlar based ballistic vests ("bullet proof" for those
who aren't picky about terminology) is that they offer essentially
no protection against attacks from edged weapons. Knives cut right
through the fibers. I see the same thing happening with kevlar
gloves. Kevlar's strength is its strength B^). It's just very hard
to snap a kevlar fiber, which is what blunt projectiles try to do.
Cutting them is easy. I've heard of the knife makers using very heavy
leather and chain mail aprons to protect themselves from blades that
get grabbed by buffers. I can't see trying to carve with mail gloves
on, however. B^)

So has anyone tried the kevlar gloves? Do they work or are they cut
pretty easily?


6026 tonyseo@p... (Anthony Seo) 1996‑09‑16 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
>So has anyone tried the kevlar gloves? 
>
 Only for changing diapers...........................

Tony
___________________________________________________________________
One is an interest, two is a collection, three is an obsession!

     (Then why do I have 98 gimlets.......................)
___________________________________________________________________


6053 "Michael D. Sullivan" <mds@a...> 1996‑09‑16 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:10:36 -0400, James Foster x2912 wrote:

>So has anyone tried the kevlar gloves? Do they work or are they cut
>pretty easily?

The butchers and meatcutters at the local grocery store use them whenever 
they are cutting meat, so I suspect they offer a fair amount of resistance 
to sharp-edged blades and cut down (pun intended) on the number and severity 
of injuries.  I wouldn't expect them to be totally proof against a knife, 
but to offer more resistance than other materials of similar thickness.  I 
assume a sharp-pointed blade, pointing right at the glove, would penetrate 
between the fibers a bit, but an edge would have to sever quite a few tough 
fibers to get through.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
mds@a... / avogadro@w... / 74160.1134@c...
----------------------------------------------------------------------


6070 Jeff Gorman <Jeff@m...> 1996‑09‑17 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
Re "Scary Sharp" sharpening, Don Berry wrote:

~  OTOH....   Bah, humbug!  SS just ain't all that special.  It is
~  reasonbly convenient if one hasn't already obtained a basic set
~  of stones and some means for buffing/polishing, but it's not
~  as if takes your irons and chisels into a a new range of sharpeness
~  previously unknown outside of Tibet.

Dead right Don! But all credit to Steve LaMantia for a brilliant new
name for an old idea.

~  O.K., time to get some coffee into my veins before I kill someone.

What! Drink a stimulant in that frame of mind, or is it
de-caffeinated? 8-).

Jeff

-- 
Jeff Gorman - West Yorkshire
jeff@m...


6132 Ernie Fisch <ernfisch@i...> 1996‑09‑17 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
** Reply to note from jaf@h... Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:10:32 -0400 
 
James Foster writes: 
 
> 
> snip... 
> 
 
> get grabbed by buffers. I can't see trying to carve with mail gloves 
> on, however. B^) 
 
Did you ever watch the meat cutters working with mail gloves?  Actually a 
very fine metal mesh.  It would never stand up to a broadsword.  They do a 
fantastic job.  A chihuahua would have trouble getting a meal from what 
they leave on a bone. 
 
Hey chain mail and boning knives are old tools.

ernie 
The Arizona tool sink, IT #22


6137 Ernie Fisch <ernfisch@i...> 1996‑09‑17 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
** Reply to note from jaf@h... Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:10:32 -0400 
 
James Foster writes: 
 
> 
> snip... 
> 
 
> get grabbed by buffers. I can't see trying to carve with mail gloves 
> on, however. B^) 
 
Did you ever watch the meat cutters working with mail gloves?  Actually a 
very fine metal mesh.  It would never stand up to a broadsword.  They do a 
fantastic job.  A chihuahua would have trouble getting a meal from what 
they leave on a bone. 
 
Hey chain mail and boning knives are old tools.

ernie 
The Arizona tool sink, IT #22


6155 Steve Turadek <turadek@c...> 1996‑09‑18 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
really not a warning, but perhaps an addition to the lore around SS(tm).

I was taking a coffee break today and had the good fortune to be sitting at
the table next to a couple of disk drive engineers.  they were talking
about how they could not get "good substrate" for their next generation of
disks.

bottom line: these guys say float-glass is "wavy as hell."  along one axis,
it's very flat.  along the perpendicular axis, "big" ripples.  'course
they're talking angstroms.  tens of angstrons actually.  (this was
enlightening because I thought disk substrate was aluminum, and because I
thought float-glass was flat.)  they went on to explain there are many
grades of machined flat glass, including "superpolished" which is flat to 4
angrstroms.

personally I've been using glass from a high-end Xerox machine platten.
they tell me this is float in cheap machines, ground optically flat in the
more expensive ones.

just thought you should know ;-)

415-267-7313(beep/Bay Area) 310-201-8615(beep/Westwood)


6156 Stephen LaMantia <lamantia@u...> 1996‑09‑18 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Jeff Gorman wrote:

 > Re "Scary Sharp" sharpening, Don Berry wrote:
 >
 > ~  OTOH....   Bah, humbug!  SS just ain't all that special.  It is
 > ~  reasonbly convenient if one hasn't already obtained a basic set
 > ~  of stones and some means for buffing/polishing, but it's not
 > ~  as if takes your irons and chisels into a a new range of sharpeness
 > ~  previously unknown outside of Tibet.
 >
 > Dead right Don! But all credit to Steve LaMantia for a brilliant new
 > name for an old idea.

I think I'll momentarily come out of "lurk retirement" for this.

Jeff G's right.  It's a very old idea.

And John D's right, and Jeff G's right again, too.  There is such a thing
as too sharp for the purpose.  No sense shining the car just before
driving through the mud.  John and Jeff's point is a good one: it's
important to pay attention and learn to feel what's necessary, and what's
overkill and wasted effort.

And Don B's right, too.  Sandpaper sharpening's not anything special.
It's just one way, of many.

I've never participated in any of the "sharpening method A is better than
sharpening method B" discussions for one strong reason.  Well, two, if I
include the fact that I don't think I'm experienced enough to
intelligently participate.  But the reason other than that is because
sometimes those discussions start to feel like there is a presumption that
the notion of "better" is a constant and that it is objective.  It's not,
and it's not.

That the notion of "better" isn't constant is obvious, I think.  As in all
methodology, what's suitable in one situation can be not so suitable in
another.  We learn what's appropriate from experience, our own and as
related by others, and if we're wise we act accordingly.  That's just
common sense.

That the notion of "better" isn't objective, though, isn't so quick to
come because we're all looking with different eyes.  We each arrive at our
individual methods by evaluating them through our own priorities, which
can be arrived at analytically but surprisingly can also be the partial
result of emotional reactions, too.  But however we come up with our
preferences, it's always true that different people in identical
circumstances are sometimes going to prefer different solutions, and yet
everyone's still as sane as the next guy.  It's that simple, and arguments
that ignore this are going to get nowhere.

I like the sharpening method I use because it accomplishes the goal --
always a main consideration, eh? -- and it also minimizes to my
satisfaction some problems with other methods that I didn't like having. I
make that a very general statement on purpose, because I think that's all
anyone needs to consider, the rest being detail.  Does something get you
where you want to go, and do you enjoy (or can you at least tolerate) the
journey getting there?

Enough philosophy stuff.  Bryan C mentioned something that caught my eye:

 > ... I managed to get EIGHT cuts in one finger and NEVER felt any of
 > them.  Right now I would count the number of cuts on the one hand but I
 > can't count that high.  Needless to say my hand looks like, well, a
 > hand that has been introduced to the Scary Sharp (tm) system. ...

>From this description, I'd suspect that those cuts didn't come from an
actual cutting edge but instead were caused by a non-cutting edge made
sharp inadvertantly.  Sometimes when polishing the back of a chisel you
will end up, as a secondary effect, putting a sharp edge along both sides
of the chisel, along the arrises where the backface meets the sides.  Then
in paring with the chisel, where the fingers of one hand steadies the
chisel by holding the blade by the sides near the cutting edge (in the
region where you polished the back), you can end up with numerous small
lacerations on those fingers, very much like shallow paper cuts.  I've
done this a few times myself, and didn't know I was getting cut up until I
suddenly noticed blood on the chisel blade.  Now whenever I finish
polishing the back of a blade, I very lightly relieve these non-cutting
edges with some fine sandpaper.

-- Steve


6171 Steve Knight <stevek@a...> 1996‑09‑18 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
>This isn't to suggest that superfine tolerances of smoothness aren't
>needed in the electronics industry, only that float glass is fine for SS,
>unless you're hoping to plane a diskdrive surface.   ;)

Damm I was gonna scarry flat my dives to speed them up.

"To know is to know that to know is not to know".


6160 Don Berry <berry@c...> 1996‑09‑18 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
O.K., this is what comes of making a grumpy Monday-morning post before
downing one's morning java.  I not-so-sweetly pointed out that SS, though
fine and dandy, doesn't really achieve anything in the way of edge
sharpness that folks wouldn't get with any number of existing sharpening 
methods. 

Strike one:  I obviously underestimated (or neglected) the fact that 
many newer folks hadn't seen a really keen edge before (BTW, a 1/2" 
wide mirror bright bevel, pretty though it is, is no indication of 
a keen _edge_.)  Thus, if SS raises the awareness of lots of ww'ers, it 
is a Good Thing in my book  (but could the new converts please stop 
hawking it as the One True Path?)

As I was penning my original post I did have some regrets that it might be
taken as an afront to my buddy Steve Lamantia (does not rhyme with with
"dementia").  Fortunately, Steve didn't really take it personally.  He
did, quite correctly, remind me that all things are relative, beauty is
in the eyes of the beholder, and that everyone of us will choose a method 
based on a slightly different set of priorities.

No argument from me.  I was only reacting (negatively) to a subtle
suggestion in several recent posts (not Steve's) that the _end result_
of SS was somehow better than the results (edges) real ww'ers have been 
using for centuries.

This, IMHO, is bullshit. 

Just think of those poor, deprived cabinet makers of days gone by...
all those wonderful chisels by Bucks, Swan, Witherby, et al., and to never
have experienced the epiphany of a SS edge.   ;)

(o.k., I may be laying it on a little thick.)

BTW, I agree with Steve's assessment that some of Bryan's cuts may have
been caused by an edge other than the bevel.  When I first starting using
my new Blue Chips and Sorby morticing chisels I endured some really nasty
cuts from the crisply machined edges before I realized what was up.  I
recently re-discovered this when using a previously un-used size of
morticing chisel from the set.   A few swipes with emery paper takes care
of the problem.

Regards,
Don Berry


6161 Don Berry <berry@c...> 1996‑09‑18 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
Steve Turadek wrote:

> bottom line: these guys say float-glass is "wavy as hell."  along one axis,
> it's very flat.  along the perpendicular axis, "big" ripples.  'course
> they're talking angstroms.  tens of angstrons actually.  (this was
> enlightening because I thought disk substrate was aluminum, and because I
> thought float-glass was flat.)  they went on to explain there are many
> grades of machined flat glass, including "superpolished" which is flat to 4
> angrstroms.

> just thought you should know ;-)

Just in case anyone missed the smiley at the end of  Steve's post, let me
remind the assembled galoothood that:
 
(1) a human hair is ca. 100 microns thick
(2) there are 1000 nanometers / micron, and 10 Angstroms / nanometer
(3) an average ATOM has a radius of ca. 1-2 Angstroms
(4) silicon carbide paper has no such specs for waviness
(5) a "even" layer of spray-on adhesive is a veritable mountain range
    on this  scale of smoothness.

This isn't to suggest that superfine tolerances of smoothness aren't 
needed in the electronics industry, only that float glass is fine for SS, 
unless you're hoping to plane a diskdrive surface.   ;)

Regards,
-Don Berry


6182 Kenneth Stagg <kstagg@e...> 1996‑09‑18 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
Stephen LaMantia wrote:
>
> I think I'll momentarily come out of "lurk retirement" for this.
>

Not here too!  Steve, why go *into* lurk mode?  When you do all we get
is Steve Knight and his 'ideas'!  This is a *MAJOR* loss.

Yes, I know that you are free to do as you please, but it's getting
disheartening to see so few posts from you, O'Deen and John.  Did
everyone decide to go away when the new default return address was
implemented?  If so, let's go back!  I'd much rather take the more
intelligent posts, even if it meant putting up with more spitoon duty.

Oh well, got that off of my chest.  Hopefully this isn't the last that
we've seen of you!

-Ken


6179 gpjohns <gpjohns@o...> 1996‑09‑18 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Don Berry wrote:

[much snipage]
>
> This isn't to suggest that superfine tolerances of smoothness aren't
> needed in the electronics industry, only that float glass is fine for SS,
> unless you're hoping to plane a diskdrive surface.   ;)

So Don, where can I get one of those big Winchester disks to start using
my SS(tm) system on? :-)

Gary Johns
"Talks to Tools"


6196 "Brendler, Ralph" <ralph@s...> 1996‑09‑18 RE: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
Ken Stagg writes:

>> Yes, I know that you are free to do as you please, but it's getting
>> disheartening to see so few posts from you, O'Deen and John.  

I can't speak for Steve and John, but I can tell you
Paddy is not ignoring us-- he's out of town for the week
(off visting Tom Bruce in PRINY).

ralph
============================================================
Ralph Brendler (ENB/FOYBIPO/OTLM)   Chicago, IL
http://www.mcs.net/~brendler/oldtools
"I prefer not to anthropomorphize tools, they hate that."


6210 Paul Pedersen <pedersen@i...> 1996‑09‑18 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
Don Berry, giving us an idea of just how obsessed we can be, writes :

>Just in case anyone missed the smiley at the end of  Steve's post, let me
>remind the assembled galoothood that:
> 
>(1) a human hair is ca. 100 microns thick
>(2) there are 1000 nanometers / micron, and 10 Angstroms / nanometer
>(3) an average ATOM has a radius of ca. 1-2 Angstroms
>(4) silicon carbide paper has no such specs for waviness
>(5) a "even" layer of spray-on adhesive is a veritable mountain range
>    on this  scale of smoothness.

I just received some 0.5 micron milar film 'sandpaper' from Lee Valley.
They say it is roughly 9000 grit !  That means each bit of grit is
less than 5000 atoms thick !

Actually, LeeValley seems to be using the Japanese scale.  0.5 micron
equates to 3000 US grit, I believe.

I'm really not that AR about sharpening (I use stones) but I was 
looking through the catalog making sure there wasn't anything else
I needed before ordering a new grinding wheel and their tool rest 
and I just couldn't resist.

Paul    (sorry Don...)

Montreal (Quebec)


6239 Steve Knight <stevek@a...> 1996‑09‑18 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
>So Don, where can I get one of those big Winchester disks to start using 
>my SS(tm) system on? :-)

Bet it would be cheeper than glass. You mean those old ones right?

"To know is to know that to know is not to know".


6283 Patrick Olguin <Odeen@c...> 1996‑09‑19 Re: Scary Sharp (tm) WARNING!!
[O'Deen, LaMantia and John]

Wasn't there a 60's song about this? I'm still here, folks, just embroiled
in the hell of working much too much. I'll be back.

Hugs and Kisses,

Paddy GM/ENB/With you all in spiritu santu



Recent Search Bios FAQ