Are there optimum techniques

[Tim Dunbar]

Mike Darlow, hello, just so i understand, when you say 30 degree honed edge are you saying that you sharpen on a CBN wheel or other wheel, and then hand hone the cutting edge?? If thats the case that would be an extra step for me, mine come straight off of a 180 grit CBN wheel to the work

Tim

 

[Mike Darlow]

Hi Tim,
I grind on an 80-grit CBN wheel, then hone with the 600-grit diamond hone in contact with both the cutting edge and bevel heel to produce an effectively flat bevel. Your edges are coarser with hollow-ground bevels. Hollow-ground bevels if you're traversing in a straight line demand more clearance which is undesirable. Also because it's serrations are finer, my honed edge will last somewhat longer than yours.
If you hone, you can resharpen several times just by rehoning before having to regrind. This is quicker than having to reset your grinding jig to accommodate a tool change and then regrind.
The bowl gouges I use when hollowing all have convex bevels. I also use a ring tool. I always hollow outboard. When you have done so you'll never want to hollow inboard.
Best wishes, Mike Darlow

 

[Richard Findley]

I agree with Mike up to a point. I’ve seen plenty of turners working, from hobbyists to professional demonstrators, and have thought ‘why would you do it like that?’ But I’m a professional production turner and part of my job is not only making the finest possible work but to do it as efficiently as I can.

What Mike doesn’t seem to appreciate is that there aren’t many production turners about these days and most turners do it purely for their own enjoyment so if it takes them all day to make a 12” bowl, so be it. Efficiency doesn’t really come into it, as long as they’ve had a nice time and made something they are pleased with and done it safely, then that’s a successful day.

When it comes to the most ‘optimal’ technique, let’s look at some of the top bowl turners out there: Glenn Lucas, Ashley Harwood and Richard Raffan all turn bowls in completely different styles, none of them are right or wrong, just different. Mike Mahoney and Stuart Batty even made a video about this very thing, competing with techniques. So to say there is just one ‘optimal’ technique doesn’t really wash with me.

Have you ever seen a Japanese bowl turner? I would suggest the way they do it is pretty optimal, in which case perhaps Mike should throw away his bowl gouges, western style lathe and start sitting to make his bowls with a hook tool?

I know Mike is more of a spindle turner than a bowl turner so I could look at a specific difference there: the tied underhand grip Mike promotes is, in my opinion, a horrible front hand grip, difficult to use unless you have a very specific toolrest and I certainly wouldn’t teach it and don’t use it myself. To use Mike’s terminology, the overhand grip is, for me, optimal and the tied underhand is very much sub-optimal. That said, I know of a couple of people that use it successfully. Does that make me right and Mike wrong (or vice versa)? No, it just makes us different and you know what? That’s ok!

When it comes to bevel angles, I suggest people experiment and find what works, the most important thing is having a sharp tool, the actual bevel angle is very much secondary and having seen the state of many hobbyists tools I would suggest that the first step is to get them sharpening well and to a good profile before insisting on a particular angle. Indeed, some of the finest turners I know couldn’t tell you the angle they grind any of their tools to. I also don’t know of a single production turner here in the UK (and I know most of them very well) that hone their tools, they use them straight from the grinder.

Sorry for the long message but it’s a big subject.

Happy turning

Richard

 

[robo hippy]

Well, the 40/40 is good for the outsides and insides of bowls for finish cuts, but being more than a "little" different, I say that scrapers are more efficient at removing waste material than any gouge, and if you have seen me turn, you know what I am talking about. Look up my video Scary Scrapers.

For the SRG, I sharpen at 40 or 45, can't remember. I never hone anything as I have not found that to be faster/more efficient than a quick trip back to the grinder. Part of this is because I use a platform for all of my sharpening, and with my platform which is no longer in production, it takes a second or three to change angles to the exact angle I need. If I wanted a 600 grit edge, then I use a 600 grit wheel. I do strop my skew chisels. Some times hand strop, some times my old Tormek.

robo hippy

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you for those who have contributed since my last post.
Woodturning can be broken down into perhaps 20 to 30 techniques. Their subjects are: tools their design and sharpening, and the choice and use of tools and other equipment in different turning situations. Richard Findley is correct that the separation into individual techniques is simpler for spindle turning.

So the first question is: can woodturning be separated into individual techniques? If it can then these techniques can be studied and compared with the alternatives. If woodturning teachers and other interested turners collaborate, then a consensus can be achieved. It is likely that for some techniques there may be more than one optimum, or that there is an optimum range.

What we have at present is the belief that different techniques suit different turners. Yet no-one has been able to define what innate factors determine that alternative A suits some, and alternatives B, C, and D suit different others.
We have discussed the sharpening angle of roughing gouges as a technique because it's simple and can be quantified. Look at Bill Blasic's last post. He is a much lauded and experienced turner. He wrote: "You are 1 of 1 and your optimum choice is 1 of 1. Where I stand is that your 30° angle is wrong, it is weak and it will not stand up to the test of time! Now that's me 1 of 1 and my choice is 1 of 1. End of back and forth, nothing to learn here."

I answered that I am not "1 of 1", that Dale Nish and Ernie Conover and I assume most of their hundreds of students also use 30 degrees. But the authors of about 15 other woodturning books promote 45 degrees. Bill Blasic reveals that he's never tried 30 degrees, and I suspect that the authors who promote 45 degrees haven't either. Is that responsible? Don't attack the messenger, do the trials and thinking.

I have taught many, and explain that I teach what I believe are currently the optimum techniques known. In my most recent class were three middle-aged women. They weren't put off the rigor of my teaching. This was an attraction because they could be proud of gaining strong skills in an efficient way.

Another example, Richard Findley wrote: "the overhand grip is, for me, optimal and the tied underhand is very much sub-optimal". Although invented in the 1920s, the grip was unknown outside NSW until probably the 1980s. Look in Richard Raffan's second edition of Turning Wood. He promotes the tied-underhand grip, although he didn't use it in England. Why? Because I showed it to him, and he realised its advantages. So I suggest that if Richard Findley gave it a proper trial he'd change his mind.

Richard Findley again wrote: "When it comes to bevel angles, I suggest people experiment and find what works, the most important thing is having a sharp tool, the actual bevel angle is very much secondary and having seen the state of many hobbyists tools I would suggest that the first step is to get them sharpening well and to a good profile before insisting on a particular angle. Indeed, some of the finest turners I know couldn’t tell you the angle they grind any of their tools to. I also don’t know of a single production turner here in the UK (and I know most of them very well) that hone their tools, they use them straight from the grinder."
Because I teach (I also ran a turning business employing six professional turners) I have to specify sharpening angles. I've also developed methods to grind those angles quickly and exactly. That production turners in UK don't hone is because they don't fully understand blunting and sharpening. A ground edge is serrated. The smaller the sharpening angle the longer the serrations, and the more readily they crumble off leaving a blunt edge. Honing removes those long, weak serrations leaving an edge which doesn't crumble. It therefore blunts slowly by abrasion. It's also very quick to resharpen by honing. If you grind a coarse angle the serrations are smaller and more durable. There's less reason to hone.

Are small sharpening angles desirable? I use 25-degree sharpening angles on the gouges I use on the outsides of bowls, on the inside of bowl rims, and on the ring tools I use in the bottom of bowl insides. Why because I don't sand most of the bowls I produce. Another situation, you have to turn a pair of adjacent beads. The angle at the bottom of the cusp between them is zero degrees. You can use a gouge, but the profile angle (Mike O'Donnell's term) is 50 degrees or more, so your beads would look dreadful. Therefore use a chisel. Book published before 1957 all have sharpening angles of about 25 degrees. Then Frank Pain promotes 45, and starts a fashion which persists to this day for unnecessarily coarse sharpening angles. Before 1957 the tool were produced from steel greatly inferior to today's. Sharpening angles should have gone down not up! So if you roll the two beads with a 25-degree sharpening angle, the beads will be near-semicircular. Use the much larger angles, and the beads will resemble inverted vees. So for this specific application, small sharpening angles are desirable. It turns out that if you grind and hone to 25 degrees the edge doesn't crumble, and because it blunts only by abrasion it blunts slowly, more slowly that a coarser edge. Therefore you can use it for planing, cutting fillets, V-cutting, etc. One of the finest turners I've ever seen honed with black Arkansas!

Richard also wrote: "What Mike doesn’t seem to appreciate is that there aren’t many production turners about these days and most turners do it purely for their own enjoyment so if it takes them all day to make a 12” bowl, so be it. Efficiency doesn’t really come into it, as long as they’ve had a nice time and made something they are pleased with and done it safely, then that’s a successful day." However imagine if a beginner was offered two choices: 1. you'll spend 40 hours of concentrated instruction and practice learning the basic optimum techniques, or 2 you can spend weeks stuffing around and thus learn lots of inferior techniques. I bet most will go for option 1. It's criminal that because of the anything -goes approach those who want to turn well don't have the option.

I am a highly qualified engineer. In my thirties I undertook the three-year trade course in woodturning at Sydney Technical College. This involved about 1,000 hours of tuition by professional turners. The course had been running since WW1. As those who have read some of my writings, or been taught by me will, I hope, attest, I try to produce sound information AND explanation.

If you contact all the fine turners in NSW, you'll find they all hone. However, the important thing is why hone. I have explained at length in my latest book why hone, and how to sharpen optimally. That many turners have closed minds is their loss.

I have suggested a simple 10-minute test: compare a 25 or 30 honed edge with a 45 degree edge, and report the results. No-one has taken up the challenge.

I realise that in USA no-one will want to adopt the techniques promoted by me in rural Australia. Be comforted that the techniques I promote were in the main invented by others. Only if there is agreement that there are optimum techniques will there be collaboration and a consensus on what those techniques are. If those I currently promote are found to be inferior, I'll change them. So, can we have some more definite inputs?

 

[Wyatt Holm]

Mike, I do have an smaller inexpensive roughing gouge and I may take up your challenge. I normally grind my bowl gouges at 40 degrees, so I use the same platform setting. Why I use 40? I learned most of what I know of spindle turning technique from Allan and Stuart Batty. To quote Allan : "I have heared of angles from 80 degrees to less than 25. This tends to confuse students as to the angle to select for their own use. I have selected 3 different angles in common use and how I would view them; 55 degrees is toward the hardwood end of the scale, if you go beyond 55 degrees to say 80 degrees, then this restricts the free movement of the tool. 25 degrees is toward the softwood end of the scale, the edge of the tool becomes thin and is vulnerable to chipping if used on the harder wood. It is for these reasons that I work with a grinding angle of about 40 degrees. This allows me to work with both hard and soft woods."
-Allan Batty Woodturning Notes

 

[Bill Blasic]

So Bill Blasic you say, "Where I stand is that your 30° angle is wrong, it is weak and it will not stand up to the test of time!" Therefore you haven't tried a 30-degrees honed edge. I dare you and all the other doubters to do and report their results.

Mike just being facetious about your inflexibility. If you care to go back I stated "I have had other roughing gouges and those gouges were sharpened at many different angles (including 30° I'm sure) with different sharpening methods. If any of those angles worked better than what I'm using now you would assume that I would still be using it." Next time I go down to the shop I'll measure the exact angle I'm using as I've never really measured it. Regardless what ever it is I guess you can say it's optimal for me.

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you Bill for rejoining our happy throng.

Richard Findley mentioned Japanese bowl turning. It's a subject I know little about. I assume that the traditional turner had to turn thousands, if not millions, of identical rice bowls and tea boxes. These vessels have steep sides. Japanese turners would I assume have desired to use optimum methods. Two points:
1. They turned on what we would call pedestal lathes which permit the equivalent of outboard turning. Why? Because these permit much greater tool and body positioning. So if you're considering buying a lathe, and want to turn bowls, buy one which has an outboard facility, and allows you to lock the chucks onto the outboard spindle so that you can turn with the lathe running in both directions.
2. They use hook tools extensively (as they did in mainland Europe before WWII). These gouges allow cutting in preference to scraping where tool access is restricted. I suspect that the sharpening angles of their hooks are far less than 45 degrees, maybe about 20 degrees?

Wyatt Holm discusses bowl gouges. The difference between turning bowls and spindles is that in the former tool access is restricted when a bowl is deep and steep sided. You then have three choices when turning the bottom of a bowl inside: a hook or ring tool with a small sharpening angle, or a scraper or gouge with a large sharpening angle. In spindle turning tool access is unrestricted. Therefore you can use smaller sharpening angles which enable easier cutting and a greater vocabulary of forms. And I repeat, if you hone an edge with a small sharpening angle it becomes far more durable.

 

[john lucas]

I use a Hunter Badger cupped carbide tool for the bottom if steep sided bowls and boxes. It leaves a finish thst looks like it's been sanded by 600 grit. I use it as a bevel riding tool like you would I old use a ring or hook tool. The reason I bring this to the discussion is that it has a 60 degree cutting edge. My ring tool has an edge around 30 degrees but I've never actually measured it. I can't tell that it leaves any better finish.
Playing with the various Hunter tools i find that the smaller radius leaves a cleaner finish on woods like curly maple and birdseye maple. Ive tried the same experiment on these woods with regular spindle gouges. The smaller radius leaves a cleaner cut. I get the same quality of cut with the Hunter tools used as bevel rubbing tools that I do with my spindle gouge. The Hunter tools have a 60 degree edge and my spindle gouges have a 35 degree edge.
If you not familiar with the Hunter cupped carbide cutters they have an outside bevel of 82 degrees and a cutting edge of 60 degrees that is highly polished.

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you John Hunter for your post. I remember we met about 20 years ago, but I wasn’t able to teach you much.

I started this Forum debate because the AAW Board does not want the issue discussed in American Woodturner. My initial Forum thread explains the issue which is that there are two beliefs: 1. that there is a suit of techniques (some tens) which are optimum for all except those with severe handicaps who want to turn as well as they reasonably can; and 2. that there are innate (inborn) differences between turners which mean that different techniques better suit different turners. However as no-one has ever been able to explain what those innate differences are, I disagree with the second belief, and strongly hold to the first. Do you have a view? So far only those who hold to belief 2 have been willing to express a firm opinion.

The debate is not about sharpening angles. I introduced the sharpening angle of a spindle roughing gouge because it’s simple to define what is optimum. Until 1957 all sources promoted 30 degrees or less. Since 1957 the majority promote 45 degrees despite the improvements in tool steel. Why the change?

You use the Hunter Badger. I’ve never seen one. However I did trial carbide scrapers. They could leave an excellent surface on hard woods, but not on soft woods. Conclusion: the optimum technique uses small sharpening angles, but for harder woods there is a variation which enables coarser sharpening angles to become an optimum. Similarly as the grain becomes more interlocked, the “width” or flute radius of the active edge needs to narrow. In short, the concept of optimum techniques is not as crude as proponents of belief 2 would like us to believe.

Why this issue is important is that if belief 1 becomes accepted, this should encourage collaboration to clarify and improve the optimum techniques, and expose those techniques which are suboptimal so that beginners who want to turn well don’t adopt them. However if belief 2 remains the norm, beginners who want to turn well will have a mass of conflicting and mostly suboptimal techniques to choose from, and are likely to choose unwisely.

 

[john lucas]

The Hunter cupped carbides are nothing like the flat carbides most people use. Used properly as bevel riding tools they leave an incredible finish despite having a 60 degree cutting edge.

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you John Lucas for your second post. You do not clarify whether the Hunter Badger tool leaves a near perfect surface also on soft woods, nor whether and how the quality of the surface on both classes of wood varies with side rake. Anyway I recall a couple of similar tools, but with HSS cutters. And is the 60-degree sharpening angle on the Hunter Badger to optimize cutting or because carbides are brittle and would quickly crumble if sharpened to a much smaller angle whereas HSS is much tougher than carbide and would not.

I asked what the sharpening angles on Japanese hook tools are, but have seen no reply. I should also have asked whether Japanese turners hone the edges of their hook tools. As I have explained, honing does improve sharpness, but it also greatly increases the durability of the edge, and makes resharpening quicker.

Robo Hippy strops some of his edges. Stropping is ultra-fine honing, and therefore beneficial. But if you strop your skews, why not other cutting tools? Because they are used under similar conditions my detail gouges and skews are ground to 25 degrees and honed. Alan Lacer explains that today’s HSSs contain much harder non-ferrous carbides than carbon tool steels, and that only diamond and CBN can abrade them efficiently. I therefore use his diamond-coated slipstones for gouges.

I posted my initial thread in an attempt to get some views on the two beliefs: 1. that there is a suit of techniques (some tens) which are optimum for all except those with severe handicaps who want to turn as well as they reasonably can; and 2. that there are innate (inborn) differences between turners which mean that different techniques better suit different turners. If you consider this issue important, and I assume you must if you have posted on this debate, with my starting thread and all the other posts you should be able to reach an informed opinion. If my opinion is correct (and as Bill Blasic so eloquently explains I may be the only one who holds that opinion), then most of the 14,000 AAW members who have never heard of this issue are unknowingly not turning as well as they should. Is this a situation which should be allowed to continue? I believe not, and therefore urge you to submit your thoughts on the issue to Joshua Friend for inclusion in American Woodturner.

 

[Mike Darlow]

This forum debate has been invaluable. It has confirmed the huge popularity of the mistaken belief that differences in turners’ innate qualities should cause different techniques to be adopted by different turners. Because of this belief AAW members are unknowingly likely to be taught and adopt suboptimal techniques. Also, once an AAW member has adopted a suboptimal technique, the probability of that member accepting advice which would improve his (no women have participated in the debate) turning is next to nil. This makes it even more important that the optimum techniques are identified and promoted so that those beginners who want to turn as well as they reasonably can are not diverted into learning suboptimal techniques.

 

[Mark Hepburn]

I'm in good company in recommending 30-degree sharpening angles for roughing gouges, Ernie Conover and Dale Nish do also. The belief that the larger the sharpening angle the better it holds an edge is common sense and is correct, but only if the edge blunts by crumbling. If the edge doesn't crumble in use, it blunts by abrasion. And if an edge blunts by abrasion, more steel has to be abraded away to blunt an edge with a 30 degree sharpening angle than to blunt one with a 45 degree sharpening angle. So Bill Blasic you say, "Where I stand is that your 30° angle is wrong, it is weak and it will not stand up to the test of time!" Therefore you haven't tried a 30-degrees honed edge. I dare you and all the other doubters to do and report their results.

Their results will be: the edge didn't crumble, was no more difficult to produce, and cut more easily. The question then should be: why do other teachers and authors recommend 45 degrees? and why also do some tool manufacturers?

Robo Hippy states: "If you play around enough, and are curious like I am, eventually you will settle on what is right for you." The evidence is that most won't. Instead they'll settle on what they think is right for them just like some of the responders in this debate. There will, however, be some turners who'll be wise enough to want to quickly learn techniques which they won't change because those turners understand that like 30-degree-honed roughing gouges, they're optimum. Currently those turners are confronted by a vast array of conflicting, and in the main, suboptimal advices. That's not a situation which I support.

Mike Darlow

I completely disagree

 

[Mark Hepburn]

I completely disagree. If it is right for the user it is logically the optimal way.

 

[Webb Willmott]

I completely disagree

Mark, do you play golf? Winners of the Masters, British Open, PGA, US Open, plus many more produce optimal results with poor grips, odd swings, any less than perfect stances. Yet they still win. Optimal results with less than optimum mechanics.

There is an expression that be aware of a player that has a poor grip and a poor swing that knows how to score.

Your “style” maybe be textbook but may not be optimal for everyone. Additionally, to draw conclusions from a few posters isn’t sufficient to defend any hypothesis although it helps to support your position.

As momma used to say, dance with the one that brought you to the dance. You can always learn to dance better but at least you’ll be on the dance floor.

I applaud you for wanting to teach outstanding performance but remember that perfection is the enemy of excellence.

Time to get off my soapbox.

 

[Mark Hepburn]

Mark, do you play golf? Winners of the Masters, British Open, PGA, US Open, plus many more produce optimal results with poor grips, odd swings, any less than perfect stances. Yet they still win. Optimal results with less than optimum mechanics.

There is an expression that be aware of a player that has a poor grip and a poor swing that knows how to score.

Your “style” maybe be textbook but may not be optimal for everyone. Additionally, to draw conclusions from a few posters isn’t sufficient to defend any hypothesis although it helps to support your position.

As momma used to say, dance with the one that brought you to the dance. You can always learn to dance better but at least you’ll be on the dance floor.

I applaud you for wanting to teach outstanding performance but remember that perfection is the enemy of excellence.

Time to get off my soapbox.

Webb, I was disagreeing with Mike Darlow.

I do not accept that there is an absolute optimal technique. Unless you’re running a CNC system

 

[Webb Willmott]

Webb, I was disagreeing with Mike Darlow.

I do not accept that there is an absolute optimal technique. Unless you’re running a CNC system

I was agreeing with you and disagreeing with Mr. Darlow!

 

[Mark Hepburn]

Oh. I’m slow today (as in most days).

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you Mark and Webb for your posts.

In golf the golfer moves the clubhead through about 20 feet at high speed. It's a miracle a golfer hits the ball at all. We would all like to swing like Ben Hogan, but we can't. However with many golfers their swing and scoring would be better if they had had expert tuition at the start, and practiced assiduously (I was single-figure-handicap golfer for about 30 years).

In turning an edge is moved is moved slowly through a very short distance. With sound tuition and a little practice, almost all turners could achieve identical cuts. Why don't they? Because their tuition is so variable, and because to most turning is a pastime. They don't really care enough.

Read my initial thread and all the posts. No one has yet even attempted to explain which innate factors would cause different techniques for the same operation to be optimum for different turners.

I offered a simple test: compare a roughing gouge edge sharpened to 30 degrees and honed with one ground to 45 degrees, honed or not as you prefer. No one has performed this simple, quick test, or if they have, they haven't dared describe the results.

So I am not going to revise my last post. My concern is for those who wish to turn as well as they reasonably can, but are unlikely to because so much conflicting and suboptimal advice is promoted.

 

[Brian Gustin]

This forum debate has been invaluable. It has confirmed the huge popularity of the mistaken belief that differences in turners’ innate qualities should cause different techniques to be adopted by different turners. Because of this belief AAW members are unknowingly likely to be taught and adopt suboptimal techniques. Also, once an AAW member has adopted a suboptimal technique, the probability of that member accepting advice which would improve his (no women have participated in the debate) turning is next to nil. This makes it even more important that the optimum techniques are identified and promoted so that those beginners who want to turn as well as they reasonably can are not diverted into learning suboptimal techniques.

Appears to continue to be a great deal of folks disagreeing with you , and I suspect a large portion of it may simply be that you are being rather vague.

Optimal Technique? Give me an example (perhaps do a video illustrating it, or go over to youtube and find what you consider to be the optimal technique and then find another one for the same purpose that is sub-optimal... After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, no?)

So far I have not seen a single specific detail of what exactly you might call optimal technique, all I have read of your posts so far is some vague notion that there is an optimal technique out there, but you have not offered any concrete examples?

Grinding angles? Meh - the wood does not care if you ground it to a 30 degree or 45 degree or anywhere in between, all that counts is a sharp cutting edge. (and how is a grinding angle a "technique", anyway?)

There has been endless debate on just how sharp IS Sharp (See other forum posts regarding grinding wheel grits , not to mention the extensive work one of these guys from Australia of NZ did on comparing how fine a grit with what type of steel, and finding that in some cases there's actually a point of diminishing returns...)

Likewise, if I could grind to a 45 degree angle and keep that edge KEEN (as in no crumbling of edge) with a better grade of steel I could easily "prove" that 45 degree angle beats your 30 degree angle on a lesser quality steel (and in some cases, a better quality steel takes a better edge but breaks away much more easily on a 30 degree angle than it does on 45 degrees) So, what may be optimal for a M2 HSS gouge may not be so optimal when you get into the more exotic steels. So I will still argue that what is optimal can often depend not only on the turner, but on the tool itself, as well as the wood being worked. (and/or the lathe) - BUT none of that is necessarily "technique"

General Definition of Technique

Technique: A specific method, procedure, or skill used to accomplish a task, especially one that requires precision, expertise, or artistry.

-- So, how does sharpening angle suddenly become a technique? SO again, what exactly is an optimal technique?

Further, with a great deal of woodturning being more about the art and the artist these days, I'd submit that if you try to get everyone to use the same technique, you'll likely be seeing similar results in the output from those turners - That'd be great for Production turners, but not so great when an artist is struggling to make their art unique (DO you think Leonardo Da Vinci and Salvador Dali used the same techniques? Rather doubtful, no? So, which technique is better or most optimal? Da Vinci's? Dali's ? Someone else's?)

 

[Mark Hepburn]

Appears to continue to be a great deal of folks disagreeing with you , and I suspect a large portion of it may simply be that you are being rather vague.

Optimal Technique? Give me an example (perhaps do a video illustrating it, or go over to youtube and find what you consider to be the optimal technique and then find another one for the same purpose that is sub-optimal... After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, no?)

So far I have not seen a single specific detail of what exactly you might call optimal technique, all I have read of your posts so far is some vague notion that there is an optimal technique out there, but you have not offered any concrete examples?

Grinding angles? Meh - the wood does not care if you ground it to a 30 degree or 45 degree or anywhere in between, all that counts is a sharp cutting edge. (and how is a grinding angle a "technique", anyway?)

There has been endless debate on just how sharp IS Sharp (See other forum posts regarding grinding wheel grits , not to mention the extensive work one of these guys from Australia of NZ did on comparing how fine a grit with what type of steel, and finding that in some cases there's actually a point of diminishing returns...)

Likewise, if I could grind to a 45 degree angle and keep that edge KEEN (as in no crumbling of edge) with a better grade of steel I could easily "prove" that 45 degree angle beats your 30 degree angle on a lesser quality steel (and in some cases, a better quality steel takes a better edge but breaks away much more easily on a 30 degree angle than it does on 45 degrees) So, what may be optimal for a M2 HSS gouge may not be so optimal when you get into the more exotic steels. So I will still argue that what is optimal can often depend not only on the turner, but on the tool itself, as well as the wood being worked. (and/or the lathe) - BUT none of that is necessarily "technique"

General Definition of Technique

Technique: A specific method, procedure, or skill used to accomplish a task, especially one that requires precision, expertise, or artistry.

-- So, how does sharpening angle suddenly become a technique? SO again, what exactly is an optimal technique?

Further, with a great deal of woodturning being more about the art and the artist these days, I'd submit that if you try to get everyone to use the same technique, you'll likely be seeing similar results in the output from those turners - That'd be great for Production turners, but not so great when an artist is struggling to make their art unique (DO you think Leonardo Da Vinci and Salvador Dali used the same techniques? Rather doubtful, no? So, which technique is better or most optimal? Da Vinci's? Dali's ? Someone else's?)

Well said sir.

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you Brian Gustin for your statement” So, how does sharpening angle suddenly become a technique? SO again, what exactly is an optimal technique?’

I refer you to The Taunton Press’s USA published book Leonard Lee’s The Complete Guide to Sharpening. Its Introduction includes “Although good sharpening technique . . .” Then there’s the back cover of Taunton’s Complete Illustrated Guide to Sharpening which state’s “Master the Techniques for Sharpening . . .”

I stated earlier that turning can be separated into about 30 operations. Sharpening each type of turning tool is a separate operation for which there should be an optimum technique. Take the one of the simplest sharpening operations, sharpening a roughing gouge. I refer you to page 10 of Lee’s book which states “A chisel should always be sharpened at the lowest bevel [sharpening] angle consistent with edge retention.” I have repeated explained that edge retention is greatly extended for small sharpening angles if the edge is honed. Hence the simple test which no one will do.

Brian Gustin accuses me of being vague. I have had 8 woodturning books and more than 200 articles published. My most recent and relevant book to this debate, Sharpening Woodturning Tools, was reviewed in the February 2024 “American Woodturner” by John Kelsey. His review includes, “This is No. 7 in Darlow’s encyclopedic series of books. I have the whole set and I value his research, many insights, and sharp analysis.” I have not yet made any YouTube videos, but have published 3 DVDs totalling 13 hours.

I have tried not to use this Forum as a blatant sales aid. Instead I hoped that this debate would be about the two beliefs, not whether the techniques I or anyone else promotes are optimum. I realise my opponents in this debate may be reluctant to buy Sharpening Woodturning Tools, but if they want to be better informed they should first go onto Amazon and read the reviews by Issam Alameh and Greg Kimball (an AAW member).

 

[Bill Blasic]

Mike tell me when you look in a mirror do you argue with yourself? And when you read your books do they put you to sleep too? I have over 50 published articles but that just makes me a man with 50 published articles not a know it all but just a personal output that gives an insight to what I have found. If you're looking for agreement to your beliefs i doubt that you will find it here. Woodturners are the greatest group of folks that I have ever been around. Totally giving with no secrets but no two of them are the same nor do they do everything the same. They do what works best for them.

 

[Brian Gustin]

Thank you Brian Gustin for your statement” So, how does sharpening angle suddenly become a technique? SO again, what exactly is an optimal technique?’

Angles ain't technique. Technique is the HOW of sharpening (grinding vs honing vs stropping , burr vs no burr, etc) Angle is just a particular specification to shoot for - like I said, if my 32 degree grind cuts better than your 30 degree grind, does that make a 32 degree angle better? That level of precision while still being efficient is going to have to be the domain of professionals and production turners with "permanent" setups using CBN wheels and locked-in-place grinding platforms - Most of us hobbyist and artistic turners are noy going to have the money or space for setting up 4 or 5 grinders with platforms at dedicated sharpening angles, otherwise, no way to consistently repeat that 2 degree variation in sharpening angle - no matter how good your platform is, if it is made to be adjusted, given the environment it operates in, there's simply no way to get the level of precision needed to tell the difference between 30 degrees and 32 degrees.

Technique won't affect sharpening angles, so again, you seem to be confusing your English terminology here. So again I ask, show me a solid real world example of conflicting techniques where the one you support is optimal and the other one ain't - Not just your opinion but some actual visible example to back up your argument, otherwise, I think you're just beating a dead horse and letting your ego get in the way. (since your original post seems to originate in the fact that the Journal won't publish your rebuttal argument)

 

[john lucas]

Mike. The Hunter cupped carbides leave an amazing finish when uses as bevel riding tools. Far better than any flat carbides I've tried even as bevel riding tools. I am particularly finicky about getting the best finish off the tool. The Hunter Badger when used at an angle like hook tools and riding the bevel will leave a finish on soft or hard woods that looks like it's been sanded with 600 grit. I have not found a tool that leaves a better finish on bix bottom. I also use it for the bottom of steep sided bowls. Much better than bottoming gouges or negative rake scrapers.

 

[Tom Kamila]

Mike, I've been a turner since the early eighties. I also spent 23 years teaching young adults to become entry level carpenters. I also have copies of your earlier books. What is missing from this discussion is the need to acknowledge the importance of intent. During my 23 years of mentoring students interested in becoming professional carpenters, they taught me an essential lesson. A students reason for becoming a carpenter needs to be validated first, followed by safety issues only then do we have an opportunity to introduce them into the life long journey of acquired skill sets and appropriate associated techniques. My experience is that guiding students safely through simple construction projects, (woodworking) at this stage that reinforce the idea in their mind that they actually could become proficient at this trade is the most important first goal. Without this first step there is no motivation to learn technique. Turning is no different. We all started out wanting to make something, a bowel, a rolling pin, a lamp base whatever. I started out wanting to make Windsor chairs. I turned one bowel and never looked back. I still have one of the only two stretchers I ever turned. At that moment I wanted to make bowels and nothing could get in my way of figuring out how!
I guess my point is technique is not the journey, it is only a part of the journey. It is very easy to snuff out asperation and inspiration by focusing on technique too soon. Safely guiding students to realize their intensions always comes first. Convincing students that technique is important goes without saying after that.

 

[Steve Gray]

Mike, again I value your analytic approach to teaching and I enjoy you raising thought-provoking questions. You mention that "no-one has been able to define what innate factors determine that alternative A suits some, and alternatives B, C, and D suit different others." Perhaps because it is not always something that one can predict based on a teacher's observations.
Here's an analogy from a field in which there are enormous dollars at stake. I'm not sure it would be plausible to argue that the current successful sidearm pictures in Major League Baseball would achieve greater success pitching conventionally. After all they probably grew up pitching conventional overhand. If all baseball coaches were to adopt your approach and come to a consensus that only overhand pitching should be taught then it is likely these very successful sidearm pitchers would have lost out on their success and earnings in their careers. I wonder if baseball pitching coaches could ascertain what characteristics of side arm pitchers could have identified them as having the potential for greater success pitching sidearm than overhand. Maybe the pitching coaches on a whim in conjunction with a pitcher's interest decided to simply expose and/or suggest the idea of sidearm pitching at some point in a pitcher's development. I'd even venture to guess almost every pitcher from casual high-schooler to Major Leaguer at some point at least toyed with a go at sidearming it in their development.
A similar analogy comes from the field of teaching mathematics. It is common in mathematics to teach different techniques for solving mathematical equations that all lead to the same proof or answer. Does the math teacher know a priori that student A will take to technique X and student B to technique Y? I'd argue, no.
Perhaps it is best for students to be exposed to different techniques, yet you are probably correct that for the majority of students one technique probably suits the majority. If teachers aligned on only one technique might we miss out on the next Cy Young sidearm pitcher or the next mathematician PhD? Is it possible that rigid approaches to teaching could fail to appeal to the most creative student?

 

[Tom Kamila]

Michelle Holzapfel told me a story back in the early nineties about how she got started in turning using a metal lathe with a manual cross feed given to her by her father. She told me that by the time anyone told her you can't turn wooden bowels with a cross feed on a metal lathe she had already learned to do it. The extensive carving she embellishes her work with takes a toll on her hands and she values the wear and tear the metal lathe eliminates. She is a world class turner and I guess somehow she got there by doing it all wrong!

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you to all five responders.

Bill Blasic stated, “If you're looking for agreement to your beliefs I doubt that you will find it here.” On the contrary, Bill, most of the posts just confirm how important my belief is.

Tom Kamila’s point about a gentle, simple project-based introduction is a sound one. To get a beginner to turn a simple stretcher you could first show him or her how to do it with a roughing gouge or a scraper. Most teachers would opt for the former. Why? I suggest because the gouge is only slightly more difficult to use, opens the path to turning by cutting, and leaves a much superior surface. Assume the gouge would be given to the student already sharpened. If there were a consensus on the optimum way to sharpen a roughing gouge, would you sharpen it that way? Just out of interest, how would you sharpen it? And why?

In my initial thread I opined that there were two beliefs about woodturning techniques: first, that different techniques suit different turners; and second my own belief that there is a suit of techniques which is optimum for all turners without major handicaps who want to turn as well as they reasonably can. I even attempted to underpin the first belief by assuming that the presence of all the conflicting, different techniques could be due to innate differences between turners. I was wrong. The first belief is not a belief with any foundation, it’s a delusion.

I have asked responders to undertake a simple 10-minute trial which would go some way towards proving the truth or otherwise of my belief. No one seems to have attempted it. Why? Because deep down they know the result, and to do the trial would prick the balloon of their delusion. A delusion which allows them to happily use suboptimal techniques, and to rebuff awkward people who say “you could do that better” by replying “well, it works for me.”

This illustrates that once a technique has been adopted, few turners are prepared to consider improving it. They’re also not prepared to seriously consider my belief because to do so would also prick the balloon of their delusion, and they would have to admit to themselves that they had made unwise choices earlier.

I have no desire to dictate what techniques turners must use. But I do believe that beginners who want to turn as well as they reasonably can should be able to access the suite of techniques which a consensus has agreed are optimum. It’s also my view that if there is such a suite, teachers should teach it unless they clarify otherwise. Ask yourself, when you started turning had you been offered the choice of being taught inferior techniques or optimum techniques, which would you have chosen?

Brian Gustin stated: “Most of us hobbyist and artistic turners are not going to have the money or space for setting up 4 or 5 grinders with platforms at dedicated sharpening angles.” Sorry Brian, if you had bothered to check how I sharpen you’d have learnt that I use one slow-speed grinder with one 80-grit CBN wheel and one aluminium oxide wheel with a concave periphery on which I grind convex bevels. On my CBN wheel I have a tilting platform jig which I can set to within about 0.25 degrees within 10 seconds. I suggest you consult my books Woodturning Techniques and Sharpening Woodturning Tools, and make yourself some Darlow grinding templates.

Brian also asks, “show me a solid real world example of conflicting techniques where the one you support is optimal and the other one ain't”. Brian, read pages 99 to 113 of Sharpening Woodturning Tools. I there promote outboard turning, and maintain that once you have hollowed a bowl outboard, you’ll never want to hollow one inboard again. So Brian, do the trial yourself. I’m certain you’ll agree with me. Why then do almost all turners buy lathes without an outboard facility and thereby spend thousands of dollars on the wrong lathe? It’s because the power of the delusion that different techniques suit different turners prevents the promulgation of solid, sound advice.

John Lucas, you haven’t told us how the Hunter Badger goes on soft woods. If poorly, you might want to compare a Martel hook tool (Woodturning Techniques, pages 77 and 78).

Thank you Steve Gray for your second input. I’m not attempting to dictate how turning should be taught. I am however concerned with what is taught. I am in the business of teaching both face-to-face and via the media. Bill and Brian, to get beginners to sharpen their tools I have to specify sharpening angles. If I specify 30 and they get 32 okay, but if I specify 32 they might get 34 and the difference probably would result in a noticeable fall in performance. If instead of 30 they get 45, then there certainly would be a fall in performance.

It is good to see so much interest in this topic. I brought it to the Forum on the advice of the AAW Board because American Woodturner would not publish my submission on the subject. If you think that the topic is of importance to the 14,000 members, why not make a s

 

[Michael Anderson]

It is good to see so much interest in this topic. I brought it to the Forum on the advice of the AAW Board because American Woodturner would not publish my submission on the subject.

I’m curious what their feedback was, if you are willing to share. Why wouldn’t they publish your article?