Most of my turning is kiln dried black walnut. What angle would you use?
-
August 2025 Turning Challenge: Wooden Version of Non-Wood Item! (click here for details) -
Congratulations to Nino Cocchiarella for "Three Sisters" being selected as Turning of the Week for August 18, 2025 (click here for details) -
Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.
Are there optimum techniques
- Thread starter Mike Darlow
- Start date
Webb, 30 for roughing gouges and parting tools used to cut, and 25 for skews and detail gouges will be fine. The edges should however be honed. Please let us know how these angles compare with those you use now.
There is one definite optimum in cutters that do very well for bowls and spindles. That's the same exact cutter for both types of turnings. Also turns against the grain almost as cleanly as with the grain. And doesn't need any sharpening jigs, etc. Widely used in production and automated turning.
The cutter is a diamond shaped carbide insert with a small nose radius as shown below. These are high positive rake, razor sharp, mirror polished inserts with molded chip breaker originally designed for aluminum cutting. Given the small nose radius they sever wood fibers rather than pushing them away causing rough patches and/or catches.
having the high positive rake these cutters can tend to self feed sometimes so some means of dampening the tendency to self feed might be needed. Significant mass in the cutter holding mechanism is the best way.
The cutter is a diamond shaped carbide insert with a small nose radius as shown below. These are high positive rake, razor sharp, mirror polished inserts with molded chip breaker originally designed for aluminum cutting. Given the small nose radius they sever wood fibers rather than pushing them away causing rough patches and/or catches.
having the high positive rake these cutters can tend to self feed sometimes so some means of dampening the tendency to self feed might be needed. Significant mass in the cutter holding mechanism is the best way.
I appreciate the subject and the point of Darlow's intent. I think he is correct when he says we should all be taught the optimal techniques. Just as we were all, most likely, taught a language and it's usage in writing and speaking using optimal techniques. Do we all get understood by writing and speaking while using the optimal techniques we were taught? Sure, we can be clearly understood, but throughout the United States alone there are countless regional accents and dialects that do not follow the optimal methods we were taught.
I am in my mid seventies and my early learning was all from books; Ernie Conover, David Ellsworh, Dale Nish, & Richard Raffan. Just as with the english language, I have taken bits and pieces from those authors, and others, to arrive at whatever I have settled into that works well for me.
I am in my mid seventies and my early learning was all from books; Ernie Conover, David Ellsworh, Dale Nish, & Richard Raffan. Just as with the english language, I have taken bits and pieces from those authors, and others, to arrive at whatever I have settled into that works well for me.
Are you turning spindles or bowls? For spindles, 25 to 30 with a skew, for the SRG, mine is at 40. I would use a 40/40 grind on a bowl gouge for a platter, and a 40/40 and a BOB (bottom of bowl) gouge for the transition and across the bottom. I am making some boxes now, and roughed out 2 blanks, 2 or so inch square and 3 inches or so long. I roughed and finished with the skew. I don't turn walnut much any more because it makes me sneeze and itch. I have found peeling cuts to be far faster and more efficient when roughing down spindle blanks.
For what ever reasons, walnut seems to dull all tools faster than most other woods, from chainsaw to scrapers.
robo hippy
That would drive me bonkers. I use the same gouges and grinds on green vs. dry woods.
Thank you to those who have responded since my last post.
The purpose of starting this debate was that AW’s editor and the AAW Board refused to publish my reply to Terry Martin’s letter in the June 2025 AW. Whether this was because they hold to the different techniques suit different turners delusion or because of some other reason isn’t entirely clear. Anyway it’s clear from the content of AW that they didn’t agree with my long-held belief. The result in my view is that the membership are needlessly disadvantaged, and the content of AW is not as interesting or as sound as we should expect.
The AAW’s membership is 14,000. Take out the foreign membership, and the US membership is about I in 30,000 of the US population. For most US turners the main benefit is AW. Would membership be higher and better served if the Board accepted that there are optimum techniques?
Kevin Jenness wrote “Why not just use a 600-grit wheel?” I haven’t tried one, but should. Possible reservations are that the clearance bevel is concave not flat which would make control more difficult in some situations, that the flute of gouges wouldn’t be honed which might shorten edge life, and expense. These may not be significant reservations.
I haven’t even heard about the carbide cutter described by Doug Rasmussen. The rounded tip would make achieving sharp cusps and sharp junctions difficult, if not impossible. And how readily could the tool be manipulated to produce the full vocabulary of possible turned forms?
If through rigorous analysis and comparison these two techniques become accepted as optimum for all turners except those with major handicaps, great.
Thank you Tom Albrecht. I never thought I’d get to read “I think he is correct when he says we should all be taught the optimal techniques.” Tom describes a pretty typical way of learning to turn. It took a relatively long time. I’m sure he became aware of conflicts between the advices promoted in the books by the four authors. And is he absolutely certain that he has chosen the techniques which work best for him (and would therefore be optimum for almost all other turners)?
The purpose of starting this debate was that AW’s editor and the AAW Board refused to publish my reply to Terry Martin’s letter in the June 2025 AW. Whether this was because they hold to the different techniques suit different turners delusion or because of some other reason isn’t entirely clear. Anyway it’s clear from the content of AW that they didn’t agree with my long-held belief. The result in my view is that the membership are needlessly disadvantaged, and the content of AW is not as interesting or as sound as we should expect.
The AAW’s membership is 14,000. Take out the foreign membership, and the US membership is about I in 30,000 of the US population. For most US turners the main benefit is AW. Would membership be higher and better served if the Board accepted that there are optimum techniques?
Kevin Jenness wrote “Why not just use a 600-grit wheel?” I haven’t tried one, but should. Possible reservations are that the clearance bevel is concave not flat which would make control more difficult in some situations, that the flute of gouges wouldn’t be honed which might shorten edge life, and expense. These may not be significant reservations.
I haven’t even heard about the carbide cutter described by Doug Rasmussen. The rounded tip would make achieving sharp cusps and sharp junctions difficult, if not impossible. And how readily could the tool be manipulated to produce the full vocabulary of possible turned forms?
If through rigorous analysis and comparison these two techniques become accepted as optimum for all turners except those with major handicaps, great.
Thank you Tom Albrecht. I never thought I’d get to read “I think he is correct when he says we should all be taught the optimal techniques.” Tom describes a pretty typical way of learning to turn. It took a relatively long time. I’m sure he became aware of conflicts between the advices promoted in the books by the four authors. And is he absolutely certain that he has chosen the techniques which work best for him (and would therefore be optimum for almost all other turners)?
Mike,
I'm kinda surprised. No offense meant but you're promoting optimum turning methods without knowledge of a wide variety of turning tools. Maybe you knew these style cutters prior to modern carbides when they were made of high speed steel? Do you know about ring and hook tools? Those are similar in high positive cutting geometry except with a very large nose radius in comparison. With the ring and hook the advantage of a very small nose radius is lost. The carbide inserts are made with as small a radius as .008" (about the thickness of two sheets of paper).
How about Hunter carbide tools? Those use carbide inserts, again with a large effective nose radius and a tilted insert that reduces the positive rake angle making them less prone to catches.
As to getting into very sharp inside corners, yes, those would need a sharp nose cutter as with any woodturning methods. But an inside radius of .008" radius can look pretty sharp in wood.
Manipulating the cutter for all possible forms? Same freedom of forms as conventional tools you know about.
If you're familiar with the type workpiece holders used in hand guided wood shapers imagine the same way to hold the tool. A heavy holder sliding on a smooth surface with the weight dampening the tool's tendency to self feed.. Fluting tools use that type holder to flute turnings with a wood router sometimes with a guide template matching the turning profile.
Doug, you haven't quite understood. Yes I hold that there are optimum techniques. No, I am not insisting that the techniques I use are optimum, but they can be taken as a start. I haven't noticed many other turners willing to poke their head above the parapet. Then the turning community can have something to rigorously compare alternatives with. If it turns out that some or indeed all the techniques I currently advocate are suboptimal, I'll apologize and update.
Some years ago I was sent a set of carbide scrapers to trial. I did so and found that their sensible applications were very limited. I sent the results to the tool manufacturer, but am yet to hear back. The carbide cutter you describe may or may not have wide optimum applications. It needs to be thoroughly and objectively trialed. Has it been? If not why not? Down here in rural Australia we're still trying to get a handle on this thing called a weal, or is it weil? No, it's called a wheel.
Some years ago I was sent a set of carbide scrapers to trial. I did so and found that their sensible applications were very limited. I sent the results to the tool manufacturer, but am yet to hear back. The carbide cutter you describe may or may not have wide optimum applications. It needs to be thoroughly and objectively trialed. Has it been? If not why not? Down here in rural Australia we're still trying to get a handle on this thing called a weal, or is it weil? No, it's called a wheel.
Mike, Maslow asserted a hierarchy of needs for us to thrive as human beings:
"From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological (food and clothing), safety (job security), love and belonging needs (friendship), esteem, and self-actualization.
Needs lower down in the hierarchy must be satisfied before individuals can attend to needs higher up."
Correct me if I'm wrong but the place your assertion would mostly apply would be "safety ( job security)" Many of us spent our lives driven by company's demanding rigorous optimal performance. Anything less and no more job!
Go to any AAW chapter and just stand there an observe the members there. Many if not most are retired from a life time in those optimal performance driven environments. Mike woodturning isn't a job, it's a hobby for most of us. We're not on the clock any more!
I would never argue your conclusions are wrong. I'm very interested in your revelations and appreciate someone like yourself having committed yourself to researching and validating this subject. But many members are equally interested in the upper end of Maslows list: "love and belonging needs (friendship), esteem, and - maybe even - self-actualization."
The beautiful thing about the AAW is that yes it teaches about the craft of woodturning but more importantly it's also an opportunity to join an organization that loves it's members and provides an opportunity to belong and acquire new and lasting friendships.
Mike you and I come from the early beginnings of this craft and we remember the excitement of exploring and directing the trajectory of a new and exciting art form. We were explorers founding a new place for these newer members to settle in and just enjoy the craft and the great organization that grew out of those heady times.
"From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological (food and clothing), safety (job security), love and belonging needs (friendship), esteem, and self-actualization.
Needs lower down in the hierarchy must be satisfied before individuals can attend to needs higher up."
Correct me if I'm wrong but the place your assertion would mostly apply would be "safety ( job security)" Many of us spent our lives driven by company's demanding rigorous optimal performance. Anything less and no more job!
Go to any AAW chapter and just stand there an observe the members there. Many if not most are retired from a life time in those optimal performance driven environments. Mike woodturning isn't a job, it's a hobby for most of us. We're not on the clock any more!
I would never argue your conclusions are wrong. I'm very interested in your revelations and appreciate someone like yourself having committed yourself to researching and validating this subject. But many members are equally interested in the upper end of Maslows list: "love and belonging needs (friendship), esteem, and - maybe even - self-actualization."
The beautiful thing about the AAW is that yes it teaches about the craft of woodturning but more importantly it's also an opportunity to join an organization that loves it's members and provides an opportunity to belong and acquire new and lasting friendships.
Mike you and I come from the early beginnings of this craft and we remember the excitement of exploring and directing the trajectory of a new and exciting art form. We were explorers founding a new place for these newer members to settle in and just enjoy the craft and the great organization that grew out of those heady times.
Mike you say "No, I am not insisting that the techniques I use are optimum". So when I and others who have been turning for 20 years or more say this is what works best for me are we not saying this is optimum for me. End of discussion!
Well as for carbide cutters, I do not use them, at all. There are two types, the flat scraper ones, and the cupped ones like Mike Hunter makes. The flat ones are scrapers, and as some one who does all of my heavy stock removal on bowls with scrapers, I figure the carbide flat scraper types are popular because they are scrapers of a small size and easier for the general public to use, especially when compared to the big heavy bowl scrapers that some seem to like. The cupped variations, I think I have an old set of "Eliminators" which had the cups at 45 degree angles, set with flats on a round bar for cutting right or left. They got dull, and I never replaced them. As for personal preference, I can't see why anyone would want scrapers over 1 inch wide. Just too much metal, with the potential to get way more cutting edge into the wood at one time which would even over power me, and I am on the Brute Squad.... This problem area on bowls is in the transition area, and you need to sweep/rotate the handle as you come into that area, not keep it at 90 degrees to the spin axis. Just me and my opinion, and some opinions stink....
robo hippy
robo hippy
Tom Kamila I agree with all the content of your last post.
You say, “Mike woodturning isn't a job, it's a hobby for most of us. We're not on the clock any more!” Are you saying if offered the choice of learning to turn well or to learn far more slowly to turn with more catches and the need to sand more, beginners would choose the latter? The current situation is that beginners don’t even know there is a choice because it’s hidden from them.
Beginners typically go to an AAW chapter and some well-meaning and generous member offers to get them started. The likelihood is that the beginner will thus adopt some techniques which are suboptimal. And we have seen from some of the posts how resistant turners are to changing techniques once adopted, and how offended some get if forced to realise that their techniques are not even optimum for them.
I sometimes get a beginner who says “I only want to learn to turn bowls.” I insist they have to take the full course, about two thirds of which is on spindle-turning techniques. At the end of the course the usual reaction is “isn’t bowl turning easy.” And it is if you’ve learnt turning in that order. In a recent class I had three middle-aged women. I explained how and what I taught, but they joined. After nine hours tuition plus additional practice they had achieved a basic competence with the skew chisel. And they were proud that they had achieved something difficult. Isn’t pride in achievement an important factor in maintaining interest and enthusiasm?
Most beginners learn the other way by first hacking out a small bowl. Few then progress to acquire a wide range of turning skills. To my mind the AAW’s focus on bowls is too strong. I have been in US turner’s houses where every square inch of horizontal surface is covered with bowls and similar because their family and friends say “No more”.
If you read through my initial thread and through all the subsequent posts I believe you’d conclude that my belief is gaining support. The reason I started this Forum debate is not because the AAW Board doesn’t agree with me, but because it doesn’t seem to want the issue considered. This I believe is harmful and depresses turning standards and ultimately the popularity of turning.
Yes, from time to time I am critical of AAW decisions. I believe that debate should be encouraged not repressed. Very few of the AAW’s 14,000 members will be aware of the debate we’ve been having because American Woodturner doesn’t encourage it. I’ve just received my August 2025 issue. No readers’ letters at all.
You say, “Mike woodturning isn't a job, it's a hobby for most of us. We're not on the clock any more!” Are you saying if offered the choice of learning to turn well or to learn far more slowly to turn with more catches and the need to sand more, beginners would choose the latter? The current situation is that beginners don’t even know there is a choice because it’s hidden from them.
Beginners typically go to an AAW chapter and some well-meaning and generous member offers to get them started. The likelihood is that the beginner will thus adopt some techniques which are suboptimal. And we have seen from some of the posts how resistant turners are to changing techniques once adopted, and how offended some get if forced to realise that their techniques are not even optimum for them.
I sometimes get a beginner who says “I only want to learn to turn bowls.” I insist they have to take the full course, about two thirds of which is on spindle-turning techniques. At the end of the course the usual reaction is “isn’t bowl turning easy.” And it is if you’ve learnt turning in that order. In a recent class I had three middle-aged women. I explained how and what I taught, but they joined. After nine hours tuition plus additional practice they had achieved a basic competence with the skew chisel. And they were proud that they had achieved something difficult. Isn’t pride in achievement an important factor in maintaining interest and enthusiasm?
Most beginners learn the other way by first hacking out a small bowl. Few then progress to acquire a wide range of turning skills. To my mind the AAW’s focus on bowls is too strong. I have been in US turner’s houses where every square inch of horizontal surface is covered with bowls and similar because their family and friends say “No more”.
If you read through my initial thread and through all the subsequent posts I believe you’d conclude that my belief is gaining support. The reason I started this Forum debate is not because the AAW Board doesn’t agree with me, but because it doesn’t seem to want the issue considered. This I believe is harmful and depresses turning standards and ultimately the popularity of turning.
Yes, from time to time I am critical of AAW decisions. I believe that debate should be encouraged not repressed. Very few of the AAW’s 14,000 members will be aware of the debate we’ve been having because American Woodturner doesn’t encourage it. I’ve just received my August 2025 issue. No readers’ letters at all.
You know I am one of those well-meaning and generous members who takes on newbees to teach them woodturning. I have done that for about 14 years. I even paid hundreds of dollars for insurance every year so I could do just that for free. My students learned first how not to get hurt, safety, safety, safety. Tool presentation and body movement and ABC, anchor, bevel, cut. Each student at the end of the first day took home a pen and a bottle stopper that they did with their very own hands. Even though I know how to use a skew I never use it and I tell the student why I don't use it. It is a dangerous tool for someone who does not know a lot about woodturning it can get you into trouble fast. I show them the SRG that can do the same thing more safely. If it were not for these well-meaning and generous members there would be a lot less woodturners. I have never ever had a student who came to me and wanted to learn spindle turning, that is not what catches newbees eyes to want to learn woodturning. No student has come to me and wants to make a rolling pin but if their here long enough they make one.
Mike, I will disagree with you a bit. While I almost never take total beginners, I would teach them what they want to learn. I have heard "learn spindles first" many times, but after turning maybe 2 spindles, I went straight into bowls. Part of that was because I had a lot of bowl blanks. To me, the same principals apply to bowl turning that belong to spindle turning. The A, B, Cs of turning, anchor the tool on the tool rest, rub the bevel, and cut. I just prefer bowls. Steve Jones, aka woodturner 21 commented once in a discussion with him, "why turn bowls when you can turn spindles" to which I replied "why turn spindles when you can turn bowls". Again, the EXACT same principals apply to both turning principals. I am mostly a bowl turner, but do some spindles. I am okay with a skew, but far better with bowl tools. And yes, this is because I practice a lot more with bowl tools than I do with spindle tools, but I am doing a bunch of boxes right now, so more spindle work! Oh, in addition to the A, B, Cs of turning, one has to know how to sharpen their tools!
robo hippy
robo hippy
Thank you Bill and Reed for your posts. I congratulate you on your generosity to beginners. But with that generosity comes responsibility. Should you be teaching the optimum techniques? If you learn that some of the techniques you’ve been teaching aren’t optimum, what will you do? As this debate has shown once techniques have been adopted by beginners, it’s unlikely that they will be changed even if proved to be inferior.
Why is bowl turning apparently so popular? There's no need to do a design beforehand. If you get a catch you just modify the design, and because each bowl is typically unique there's no need to improve bowl-turning skills so that exact multiples can be produced.
As you know a turner can produce all the bowls a family will need in less than a day. What then? Because in American Woodturner and Woodturning magazine what are pictured are mainly bowls with ornament, decoration, etc., etc. new turners are lead along that path.
I employed six professional turners. Some years we turned no bowls at all. In my book Useful Woodturning Projects I reproduce from Holtzapffel’s Hand or Simple Turning a list of about 300 items which can be turned. Combine turning with simple furniture-making skills and the possibilities open up even further. However there’s a snag. Functional turnings and components often require multiple identical spindle turnings. And to produce these requires formal turning skills which aren’t being taught.
I’m a founder member of the AAW. When it was being formed, it was going to be called the American Association of Studio Woodturners. Ray Key proposed dropping the word “Studio”. Unfortunately that’s all that seems to have changed.
Therefore I believe that the AAW needs a new direction. It needs to: recognise that there are optimum techniques in bowl, cupchuck, faceplate, hollow and spindle turning, and promote them; encourage a wider range of subjects for turning; and encourage debate in American Woodturner so that all the membership can be informed.
I note that in the August 2025 American Woodturner are six Board candidates seeking your vote. Why don’t you (they won’t take any notice of me) encourage them to read this debate and reveal what they might seek to achieve if successful?
Why is bowl turning apparently so popular? There's no need to do a design beforehand. If you get a catch you just modify the design, and because each bowl is typically unique there's no need to improve bowl-turning skills so that exact multiples can be produced.
As you know a turner can produce all the bowls a family will need in less than a day. What then? Because in American Woodturner and Woodturning magazine what are pictured are mainly bowls with ornament, decoration, etc., etc. new turners are lead along that path.
I employed six professional turners. Some years we turned no bowls at all. In my book Useful Woodturning Projects I reproduce from Holtzapffel’s Hand or Simple Turning a list of about 300 items which can be turned. Combine turning with simple furniture-making skills and the possibilities open up even further. However there’s a snag. Functional turnings and components often require multiple identical spindle turnings. And to produce these requires formal turning skills which aren’t being taught.
I’m a founder member of the AAW. When it was being formed, it was going to be called the American Association of Studio Woodturners. Ray Key proposed dropping the word “Studio”. Unfortunately that’s all that seems to have changed.
Therefore I believe that the AAW needs a new direction. It needs to: recognise that there are optimum techniques in bowl, cupchuck, faceplate, hollow and spindle turning, and promote them; encourage a wider range of subjects for turning; and encourage debate in American Woodturner so that all the membership can be informed.
I note that in the August 2025 American Woodturner are six Board candidates seeking your vote. Why don’t you (they won’t take any notice of me) encourage them to read this debate and reveal what they might seek to achieve if successful?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 1,290
- Likes
- 2,692
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
- Website
- loujacobswoodturning.com
Robo, I’m so glad to see you say this. I’ve just worked through a batch of walnut from a large tree (about 22” in diameter) that’s been down for a couple of years near me. I’m happy with the results but was sharpening the chainsaw and the gouges like never before. I suppose it’s high mineral content in the wood, but whatever the cause, it was quite a chore. Not so bad to go back to the grinder with a gouge in the shop, but when you’re off in the woods with a saw that is quickly losing performance, that can get demoralizing.
Typically, walnut has a higher silica content than many domestic woods. That is the main component that rapidly dulls tools.
That's a good reason to take multiple sharp chains to the woods and use a grinder in the shop to tune them up.