- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 48
I'm sure it's been brought up, but I couldn't find a discussion about this concept.
When I set up the angle on an Edge Pro, I zero out an angle cube on the blade table, and then set the cube on the bar that holds the stone. Of course there's compensation for stone thickness.
In this situation, the cutting stone's angle is based on its relation to the blade table. When I put a blade on the table, the primary bevel will always be at a more obtuse angle (or acute depending on your perspective) than the blade table. This would apply to a blade that has flats big enough to lay on the table, or a FFG blade. So what I'm seeing is the cutting stone will always be at a more acute angle with the blade than it is with the blade table. To find the cutting stone's angle in relation to the actual blade, I'd need to zero out an angle cube on the plane of the blade's primary bevel, and then compare it with the cutting stone's angle.
This would seem to apply to all guided systems really.
Of course none of this matters if I sharpie the secondary, and try to match the existing angle.
Am I confused, or does someone else see this?
When I set up the angle on an Edge Pro, I zero out an angle cube on the blade table, and then set the cube on the bar that holds the stone. Of course there's compensation for stone thickness.
In this situation, the cutting stone's angle is based on its relation to the blade table. When I put a blade on the table, the primary bevel will always be at a more obtuse angle (or acute depending on your perspective) than the blade table. This would apply to a blade that has flats big enough to lay on the table, or a FFG blade. So what I'm seeing is the cutting stone will always be at a more acute angle with the blade than it is with the blade table. To find the cutting stone's angle in relation to the actual blade, I'd need to zero out an angle cube on the plane of the blade's primary bevel, and then compare it with the cutting stone's angle.
This would seem to apply to all guided systems really.
Of course none of this matters if I sharpie the secondary, and try to match the existing angle.
Am I confused, or does someone else see this?