skatingforums
On the Ice => The Pro Shop => Topic started by: tstop4me on October 29, 2021, 11:00:56 AM
-
For those who use the Pro-Filer hand skate sharpener, here's an interesting development. If you enter "pro-filer.com" in your browser, you get redirected to: https://wissota.com/product-category/edge-specialties/, the Wissota website. It lists the boot punch, HDI gauge, and rocker bars by Edge Specialties (company that manufactured the Pro-Filer), but not the Pro-Filer. I'm not in need of a replacement unit, and I was just checking for any updates. But if you are in need of a replacement, or were considering buying a new unit, you should probably get in touch with Wissota pronto to see what's happening.
-
Curious. Probably not a good sign for fans of hand sharpening.
I hope that I'm wrong and that Wissota picks up the hand sharpeners for distribution, but it doesn't sound good.
-
I don't think it's redirecting ... the domain was transferred on 10/18/2021. Maybe their domain ownership period expired and Wissota bought the domain before Edge Specialties realized it had expired. I think they can reclaim it, if they act quickly.
https://www.whois.com/whois/pro-filer.com
I have a Pro-Filer and this was the contact info from my order:
Edge Specialties Inc.
320 815 3338
pro-filer@charter.net
-
Eeks!
I hope Edge Specialties comes back. Perhaps someone here should give them a call, and see if they are still around.
Oh well - I have often thought that someone should compete with Pro-Filer, by bringing back a modernized version of the old Berghman sharpener, which, IMO, were better, except for the stone quality.
The good news is that, even if it turns out Pro-Filer is dead, last I checked, there were number of alternate providers of abrasive cylinders (even some with diamond grit), that would fit in the Pro-Filer.
Things to search for on search engines:
abrasive round stone
drum sander, sanding sleeve
sanding drum
cylindrical stone
abrasive cylinder
or, in less durable materials,
abrasive sleeve
spiral band
or, originally for use in a drill or similar tool, if you could make them fit:
mandril
mandrel
arbor
-
One alternative product
-
One alternative product
Well now that one looks interesting. I love my pro-filer, but hate how it scratches up my blades. It's only cosmetic, but still bugs me.
Kaitsu, do you have any personal experience with this product? it looks like it's made of plastic? Is it durable? I like how both the sharpening and finishing stones are together in one unit, too.....
-
I have three of them, all with different radius. You can buy them for here => http://precisionblade.com/index.php/product-catalogue/
As I have power grinder, they are just decorative items for me. I have tried them couple times, as well as SkateMate but personally I didn't like either of them. Most likely I would not like Pro-filer either. Pro-filer was too expensive for me just to try it for fun.
The body is made of nylon, the cylinder is aluminum and it has self adhesive sand paper around it. With the brass screws you can try to adjust the blade thickness and get the tool parallel to the blade. I guess common with Pro-filer and these root honing tools is that you need to push them quite heavily against the Hollow or other ways it starts to travel un-parallel. If you adjust the brass screws to be too snug, the aluminum cylinder slips away.
-
I don't think it's redirecting ... the domain was transferred on 10/18/2021. Maybe their domain ownership period expired and Wissota bought the domain before Edge Specialties realized it had expired. I think they can reclaim it, if they act quickly.
https://www.whois.com/whois/pro-filer.com
I have a Pro-Filer and this was the contact info from my order:
Edge Specialties Inc.
320 815 3338
pro-filer@charter.net
I believe that the practice you've described is called "cybersquatting". I can't imagine Wissota deliberately doing that to Edge Specialties (especially since Wissota is selling Edge Specialties products). But who knows what's going on? Regardless of the technical intermediate route, the end result is the same: If you type in "pro-filer.com" in a browser, you end up at a Wissota webpage.
Anyway, so we don't go down the rabbit hole of endless speculation, I've e-mailed both Wissota (via their Contact Page on their website) and Edge Specialties (via their last known address as listed in your post pro-filer@charter.net, which is also what I last used in 2016). I'll post updates if I get any replies.
-
The body is made of nylon, the cylinder is aluminum and it has self adhesive sand paper around it. With the brass screws you can try to adjust the blade thickness and get the tool parallel to the blade. I guess common with Pro-filer and these root honing tools is that you need to push them quite heavily against the Hollow or other ways it starts to travel un-parallel. If you adjust the brass screws to be too snug, the aluminum cylinder slips away.
<<Emphasis added>> With respect to the Pro-Filer, heavy pressure is not needed. The Pro-Filer has a fixed-width (non-adjustable) guide slot that slides along the sides of the blade. Proper centering, alignment, and clearance are nominally achieved by applying one or more layers of tape onto the sides of the blade; the tape also nominally protects the sides of the blade from scratches. I say "nominally" because the use of tape is a major neg of the Pro-Filer, and we've had previous posts dedicated to tape issues.
-
I have three of them, all with different radius. You can buy them for here => http://precisionblade.com/index.php/product-catalogue/
I just visited that site, and can't find the item you show... But I've been thinking of making something from standard pipe clamps, and off-the-shelf abrasive cylinders.
With the old Berghman sharpeners, you could tape the pieces that form the (adjustable) gap. I presume you could even use foam tape to deal with side-honed blades. Once applied, the tape would stay on there. (I tried to tape the sides of a Pro-Filer, but can't make it stick, because there isn't enough room to work it in - if you want smooth sides, you have to carefully re-tape the blade every time instead.) Of course, you would want to replace the old crumbly coarse grain cylindrical stones with something newer and better. Also, they only came in 1/2" ROH. But the good news is they are available, used, for about $5-$10.
Too bad no one makes a modern version of the Berghman with other ROH. The patents must have expired long ago - if I remember right they were made from about 1929 to 1949.
I would love to see the response tstop4me's emails. I had tried to email them too, with no response, so far.
-
I would love to see the response tstop4me's emails. I had tried to email them too, with no response, so far.
I did recently get a response from Edge Specialties. But I'm awaiting clarification (plus permission to post their response). [ETA: But I'm happy to report that Wissota is not guilty of cybersquatting.]
-
I just visited that site, and can't find the item you show...
Yeah, their website sucks.
* Go to: http://precisionblade.com/index.php/product-catalogue/
* Near the top, click on the tab "Burr Removing Products"
* Near the bottom, click to advance to Page 2.
-
OK. Here's the word from Jan Anderson at Edge Specialties [Brad and Jan Anderson run Edge Specialties].
* They are retiring.
* They have sold the "pro-filer.com" domain to Wissota.
* They have sold the boot punch, HDI gauge, and rocker bar product lines to Wissota. These are the products featured on the Edge Specialties page of the Wissota website (where you land when you enter "pro-filer.com" in a browser).
* Edge Specialties still has some Pro-Filers in inventory for sale. If you are interested, please contact:
Jan Anderson
Edge Specialties, Inc.
phone 320-808-1536
e-mail pro-filer@charter.net
-
Yeah, their website sucks.
* Go to: http://precisionblade.com/index.php/product-catalogue/
* Near the top, click on the tab "Burr Removing Products"
* Near the bottom, click to advance to Page 2.
Hmmm they say they're "honing" tools, for removing burrs "post sharpening". So not really a replacement for the pro-filer. And yes on this latter unit the tape, and especially the interaction of the tape with the chassis, is a bear. I only use it now for emergencies.
-
Hmmm they say they're "honing" tools, for removing burrs "post sharpening". So not really a replacement for the pro-filer. And yes on this latter unit the tape, and especially the interaction of the tape with the chassis, is a bear. I only use it now for emergencies.
Also, since you are concerned with cosmetic scratches: A plastic, rather than aluminum, chassis by itself may reduce, but not eliminate, scratches on the polished sides of your blade. Inevitably, abrasive grit or fine metal particles will get lodged between the chassis walls and the sides of the blades and cause scratches.
-
AFAICT from the pictures, they work the same way as Pro-Filer and Bergman sharpeners - i.e., a slot centers the blade on an abrasive cylinder.
So maybe they can do more than remove burrs. I wouldn't be surprised if they can do everything - though, as with Pro-Filer, it is possible they are too slow (and would create too much wear on the cylinder) to change profiles in a reasonable amount of time - and even changing ROH would take a lot of time. To do those things in reasonable time, they would need a very coarse grit stone.
And of course a powered sharpener, that rotates, will be faster still. Like the Wissota tools, etc. For a professional skate tech who gets a lot of skate sharpening business, the powered tool would quickly pay for itself.
There was another company in the hand sharpener business at http://www.thebladedoctor.com that made somewhat similar devices (but the handle was made out of flexible materials) that only fit hockey blades. But Edge Specialties sued them out of existence for patent violation.
The truth is, the idea behind such devices is very simple. But I assume machining them to high accuracy isn't something most home shops, even if they have metal working tools, could easily handle. Since abrasive cylinders are available for other purposes off-the-shelf, perhaps centering the slot on the cylinder is the hard part. Otherwise lots of people would do it
I'm not sure the Berghman device was a super-high-accuracy machining project. But it used spring pressures to make the device self centering, and to make it easy to adjust the gap size. Perhaps the Precision Blade device uses a dual pipe mounting bracket somewhat the same way? I thought of doing that, but wasn't sure it would work well enough.
As far as finish quality is concerned, a hand tool can do a very good job - if you lubricate it or use polishing fluid.
-
Well now that one looks interesting. I love my pro-filer, but hate how it scratches up my blades. It's only cosmetic, but still bugs me.
Kaitsu, do you have any personal experience with this product? it looks like it's made of plastic? Is it durable? I like how both the sharpening and finishing stones are together in one unit, too.....
I also have this tool. If you don’t like scratches on the sides of your blades, you probably won’t like it. The brass adjustment screws are used to fine-tune the clearance on the side of the blades, and unless you tape the blades (and probably even if you do), the screw ends will scratch the blades. I can’t stand the sensation of the screws digging into the blades, it’s like fingernails on a chalkboard…and unless I’m gouging the sides of the blades, the cylinder doesn’t necessarily run down the center of the blade. Definitely could be user error. I wish the brass screws were attached to a smooth plate on each side that would glide along the sides of the blade. That could also have a specialty version (maybe garnet cloth) to polish the chrome relief at the same time.
That being said, the cylinders are nicely made and the two different grits are useful for hand-honing blades.
I use the 15 micron cylinder for polishing after sharpening skates on my machine, but I use it without the holder and with the skates clamped to the side of my workbench. I would not recommend this without cut-proof gloves. If you have a lot of practice, you can feel the cylinder sitting in the groove and guide it by hand better than with the holder.
I went on a trip recently and took the holder and cylinders with me in case of emergency need. It would take awhile, but if necessary, you could sharpen your blades with this device. Happily, I didn’t need it.
-
It seems Pro-filers are now available in Blademaster.
https://blademaster.com/web/en/2560-retail-products
Can someone give me dimensions from the Profiler? How long honing cylinder is and how the cylinder can be removed from the aluminum holder. I am planning to 3D-print holder which works better for figure skates. I do not have this tool. Some outer dimensions I can get from the Bills photos. Those whom was this tool can give tips how would you improve this tool.
-
The abrasive cylinders are 2" long. They can be removed on an original ProFiler by knocking out one of the two roll pins that retain the cylinder. That's simple enough to do, but I also drilled and tapped a ProFiler body to take screws to make it even easier.
Thread here...
http://skatingforums.com/index.php?topic=7896.msg94487#msg94487 (http://skatingforums.com/index.php?topic=7896.msg94487#msg94487)
The shape of the chassis on the new models offered by Blademaster are different. The opening that guides the blade on the new models doesn't have an extension on the top of it. It's simply a slot that lies flush with the top of the chassis. I don't know if the whole chassis has been extended to keep the slot depth the same to help guide blades, or if they simply designed it without that extra extension (greater chance of uneven edges).
It's being marketed for hockey skates, so I assume the slot for the blade will be narrower. Your 3D printed chassis could take care of that issue for figure blades.
-
It seems Pro-filers are now available in Blademaster.
https://blademaster.com/web/en/2560-retail-products
Can someone give me dimensions from the Profiler? How long honing cylinder is and how the cylinder can be removed from the aluminum holder. I am planning to 3D-print holder which works better for figure skates. I do not have this tool. Some outer dimensions I can get from the Bills photos. Those whom was this tool can give tips how would you improve this tool.
Here's a previous thread I started brainstorming improvements to the Pro-Filer: http://skatingforums.com/index.php?topic=8385.msg100071#msg100071. The major improvement would be an adjustable gap on the chassis to handle blades of different thicknesses. If you're making an entirely new chassis, this should be much easier to do than modifying the existing chassis. Also, note that the chassis of the figure skate kit needed to be modified to work with Paramount and Matrix blades.
If you're planning to buy the stones from Blademaster, you should check with them what the current length is. It might not be the same (2") that was supplied with the Pro-Filer figure skate kits. There were separate hockey skate kits that used a different chassis and a different length for the stones; the original Pro-Filer hockey skate kits were different from the Blademaster ones.
ETA: Looks like the Blademaster Pro-Filer has the coarse diamond stone only. The original Pro-Filer kit for figure skates came with two units: one with a coarse diamond stone (for sharpening) and one with a finer silicon carbide or aluminum oxide stone (for finishing).
-
And I think hockey sharpeners tend to use a coarser grain than the fine grain stone in the Pro-Filer figure skating kit.
If you don't need super-sharp blades, that might be good enough - in fact, it might negate the need for using a flat stone to de-burr or to redirect the burr into a foil edge. I've recently been using my coarse Pro-Filer without a flat stone.
BTW, I'm not sure the Pro-Filer patents are still in force. How would one figure that out?
The old hockey style Pro-Filer I bought did have a slightly adjustable gap size - it had screws instead of punch pins. But not adjustable enough to accommodate figure blades. That's why I had to file it wider, which was a bit challenging, because I wanted to maintain proper centering.
-
The old hockey style Pro-Filer I bought did have a slightly adjustable gap size - it had screws instead of punch pins. But not adjustable enough to accommodate figure blades. That's why I had to file it wider, which was a bit challenging, because I wanted to maintain proper centering.
At some point, Brad sent me a sample of the new figure skate chassis that he was planning to use. Similar to the hockey skate chassis. It does have two halves screwed together, but no adjustable gap, unless you intentionally don't tighten the screws to leave a larger gap (but then everything would just flop around, and centering is not maintained). You should check carefully the unit you have.
-
Can someone give me dimensions from the Profiler?
I spent a little time with calipers and a radius gauge set measuring a 3/8" ROH ProFiler that I have here. With these dimensions, someone should be able to replicate the chassis in a machine shop.
(https://www.afterness.com/skating/images/profiler-dimensions.jpg)
If you can 3D print, this might help you get started. Dimensions are in inches.
Click the picture to make it bigger (on some computers/browsers).
-
There is also the Blade Barber:
https://www.bladebarber.ca/ (https://www.bladebarber.ca/)
They claim it can sharpen hockey and figure blades to 4 mm thick. I don’t see how it can get even edges without being tailored to a specific blade thickness. Presumably they allow for a certain tilt, maybe one thousandth of an inch. I did a quick calculation assuming a 0.5” hollow, and I think using this tool the edges could be out of kilter by 3 thousandth of an inch, which is unsatisfactory in my opinion.
-
Thanx Bill. I was too unpatient and made first 3D model based on your old photos where you instruct using of Pro-Filer. This means that print dimensions are not as per as your excellent dimensional drawing. Print is also with 1/2" radius.
At the moment my target is to study how far this tool goes in to the chromed surfaces. In the other words, how big risk there is that chromed surfaces are scratched with tool which slot has same width with the blade. Means no any protective tape cannot be used. Another thing what I try to understand, how well this tool ensures edges evenness and does it round the edges like so many other tool what I have tried so far.
Even the adjustable slot would be nice, I dont think that I am able to tune this specific tool design so that it would work as well as without any adjustments. Its easier just to print bodies with different slot widths. Cost of one print is so low. During the weekend I might have time to draw Bergham sharpener. I have planned to print it also just from pure curios how it works. Can centering work so well that it could be really used. These all are just tests to feed my study hunger. Maybe this help also those whom does have Pro-filer and they would like to improve their tool.
-
If you can inexpensively produce a set of chassis, each with a separate gap value, that would avoid the complexity of a design with an adjustable gap.
Even if the material of the chassis is soft enough that the chassis itself does not scratch polished chrome (or stainless) surfaces, scratches will be inevitable (in the absence of tape or other protective coating on the polished surfaces). As you perform the hand grinding, particles of abrasive or steel will come loose and fall in between the chassis and polished surfaces and cause scratches.
-
Just call the scratches an "extended chrome relief" feature. ::>)
BTW, it IS possible to get uneven edges when using a ProFiler, but it's obvious that there's an upper limit on how much error there can be. The tool is mostly guided on the blade within a narrow range. Frankly, I could never detect the slightly uneven edges produced by a hasty ProFiler sharpening although it could be measured with the very sensitive tools I own.
-
BTW, I'm not sure the Pro-Filer patents are still in force. How would one figure that out?
By Googling...https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5431597.html
What I know, patent protection is granted for a limited period, generally 20 years from the filing date of the application.
-
Today I was struggling a bit with my 3D printer, but I managed still to make my own honing cylinder. Basically I can choose any grit. Same idea could basically used also in original Profiler if someone wants to have new honing cylinder and they cannot be found from the markets anymore....or if you want some special coarseness.
-
Excellent!
That's a very clever sandpaper holder for the abrasive "stone". Great job!
-
Just a though: if Blademaster's variant on the Pro-Filer (which they don't seem to call Pro-Filer) has no extensions, just a gap, does that make it harder to align, because the gap isn't as high as the gap+extension? But does it also mean that the tool could sharpen some current generation Matrix and Paramount blades that Pro-Filer might have trouble with?
Even if the material of the chassis is soft enough that the chassis itself does not scratch polished chrome (or stainless) surfaces, scratches will be inevitable (in the absence of tape or other protective coating on the polished surfaces). As you perform the hand grinding, particles of abrasive or steel will come loose and fall in between the chassis and polished surfaces and cause scratches.
Not if the tool is UNDER the blade. E.g., if you hold the tool with a vice, as I think Bill_S once suggested, or maybe in your hand, though holding it underneath with my hand makes it a little harder to center it.
As I've said before, I have no trained tool skills, but have to learn from my mistakes. So I have indeed made some scratches. I had to learn to lubricate the sides of the blade, by wetting them - which helps.
The problem is, I like to see what I am doing (so I only bump into the toe pick), so I do tend to hold the tool ABOVE the blade. So I have have some minor scratches. :(
Just call the scratches an "extended chrome relief" feature. ::>)
Great idea! Claim the scratches help orient and redirect the blade, or something else vaguely plausible.
The sanding drum that Kaitsu made looks a bit challenging to make - you might need a pretty high accuracy 3D printer. There are commercially available sanding drums, and sanding sleeves that fit them. I wonder if any of them could do the job.
-
The holder is harder. I still wonder if one could cut a square board, drill a hole in the center, then cut a gap at right angles, using woodworking tools. I don't have the right tools or skills to do this with high accuracy, but maybe someone with good woodshop tools could do it, to the .01" accuracy of Bill's drawings.
Of course, the wood would eventually wear out. AFAICT, the reason wood is easy to work is precisely because it sheers off easily. One might need to make replacements, if you use it a lot.
Is .01 accuracy good enough to create reasonably even edges?
There is also the Blade Barber:
https://www.bladebarber.ca/ (https://www.bladebarber.ca/)
II tried a few cheap skate sharpening tools that were made so poorly, they did an awful job. Did you try this one? Wow would one enforce the ROH - or will it gradually flatten the hollow?
Kaitsu, you've already got real professional grade sharpening tools. So is making your own hand tool just a fun challenge for you?
-
Just a though: if Blademaster's variant on the Pro-Filer (which they don't seem to call Pro-Filer) has no extensions, just a gap, does that make it harder to align, because the gap isn't as high as the gap+extension? But does it also mean that the tool could sharpen some current generation Matrix and Paramount blades that Pro-Filer might have trouble with?
* The Blademaster website calls their product a "DIAMOND PROFILER". But if you click on the photo of the complete kit, the packaging reads "PRO-FILER", and even still bears the "Edge SPECIALTIES" mark. Don't know whether this is just a transitionary phase or what.
* What we don't know (and it's difficult to judge from the Blademaster photo) is how deep/high the slot/gap on the current version is compared with how deep/high the total slot/gap (taking into account the main body of the chassis plus the extension rails) of the original version is.
* I have Paramount blades (their Gold Seal version in 440C stainless steel). When new, the runners are ~6 mm wide. For the old Pro-Filer to work, I had to file the extension rails off completely. Needs more careful control. Some versions of the latest intermediate-grade Paramount blades I saw on display have runners ~8 mm wide. Likely easier to handle. The Matrix blades I saw on display had narrower runners, only ~4 mm wide. Not sure that provides sufficient guide surfaces if you modified the chassis to accommodate the narrower runners.
Approximately how wide are your old Matrix I runners?
-
Not if the tool is UNDER the blade. E.g., if you hold the tool with a vice, as I think Bill_S once suggested, or maybe in your hand, though holding it underneath with my hand makes it a little harder to center it.
As I've said before, I have no trained tool skills, but have to learn from my mistakes. So I have indeed made some scratches. I had to learn to lubricate the sides of the blade, by wetting them - which helps.
Holding the blade with the edges down, and pushing up with the sharpener would likely reduce the number of particles that get in between the chassis and polished surfaces, but I don't think it would eliminate them. Some will still migrate upwards (particularly in the presence of a lubricant film) during operation. And when you remove the tool from the blade to flip the orientation of the tool, rotate the cylinder, clean the cylinder, switch blades, or end the operation, it'll be difficult to prevent particles from becoming embedded in the walls of the slot eventually: e.g., particles will tend to accumulate along the edges of the blade; as you remove the tool, the edges of the blade will likely contact the walls of the slot, and particles will be transferred from the edges of the blade to the walls of the slot.
And as you realize, the edges-down configuration is not ideal for viewing and for applying controlled pressure. Overall awkward configuration for operation. As I discussed before, I prefer to mount the blades sideways.
At any rate, I value functionality over cosmetics; however, I realize that many figure skaters place a premium on cosmetics.
-
Holding the blade with the edges down, and pushing up with the sharpener would likely reduce the number of particles that get in between the chassis and polished surfaces, but I don't think it would eliminate them...
And maybe it would leave more particles next to the hollow surface - which might matter more.
I guess almost any abrasive process could have problems with scratching. Do you think it is better or worse with powered sharpening tools?
I've seen powered sharpening tools on which the tech failed to clean the filings off the surface on which the side of the blade glides - but that is a correctable error.
Another issue, now that I think of it - I'm not sure the entire 2" length of the abrasive cylinder ("stone") is in contact with the blade - it seems like the rocker curvature would confine it to one short length of contact at a time. Does that mean a shorter tool would do as well?
-
Another issue, now that I think of it - I'm not sure the entire 2" length of the abrasive cylinder ("stone") is in contact with the blade - it seems like the rocker curvature would confine it to one short length of contact at a time. Does that mean a shorter tool would do as well?
You could get by with a shorter cylinder, but why would you? Suppose you used a cylinder 1/2" long instead of 2" long. You would still want a longer chassis to provide better longitudinal guiding and to make it easier to grasp (otherwise add a handle to make it easier to grasp). The shorter cylinder would initially be cheaper than a longer one, but it would wear out faster (if you operate the existing Pro-Filer properly, you can spread out the wear over nearly the full length of the cylinder).
-
I'm largely unconcerned with cosmetic issues too. A few people on this forum have claimed they can tell they are slower with scratched blade sides, so maybe it isn't just cosmetic. Intuitively, it makes sense, if you consider boats in water, and studded tires on ice - but those are a lot different. Without objective measurements under conditions similar to figure skating, it's hard to tell.
In my case, I'm personally certain that getting stronger would make much more difference than minor scratches.
At the moment, I'm pleased with and used to what Pro-Filers do for me. Refinements are mostly a curiosity issue for me. But it would be very cool if Kaitsu were to offer his 3D printed tools, assuming they work well.
I've also thought about simply pulling an abrasive cylinder against the bottom of the blade, using a stretched cloth, pulled tight with my hands and fingers across the sides of the blade - but suspect that would be slower, and possibly harder to control.
I will later take measurements of the thickness of my old Matrix I blades. Near the bottom of the blades, they were ground a little thinner than the rest of the runner - and in a way that pre-scratched them there - which I don't understand since they were Stainless 440 (440C??) alloy blades. It's hard to tell if any additional scratches I create could possibly matter. But measurements of the old Matrix I blades won't do anyone much good - people bought out Jackson Ultima's remaining stock rather quickly (I think a few weeks or less) after they stopped making them, and it's very hard to find them or the chassis for sale over the Internet.
-
A few people on this forum have claimed they can tell they are slower with scratched blade sides, so maybe it isn't just cosmetic.
According to my understanding in this thread we have talked about chromed areas scratching, but I might have understood wrongly. If scratches in the chrome affects to the skating, problems is in the mental side. What I mean is that if your focus in in the wrong things, you may have problems.
Typically, blades are thinner from the areas where chrome has ground off. If so, at least in theory Pro-filer should not scratch the edges you us for skating. In some other thread(s) I have probably claimed that coarse chrome removal grinding affects to the skating. If I may correct my possible statement, I cannot tell how much that affect to the skating, but it is for sure that the edge is not perfect if one side of the edge is mirror finished and another side has grinding with deep scratches. If you sharpen your knife, you don’t use 3000 grit whetstones for one side and 40 grit stone for other side. Attached picture shows what is the problem, but I do not expect all to understand the point.
Printed tool works better than any other hand sharpening tools I have tested so far. Is it as good as original, that I cannot know as I have never tried Profiler. At least I am able to choose corseness and try polish power grinded hollow.
-
Query, your mention of cloth has made me think about stretching some jersey knit rag cloth inside the Profiler to minimise scratches. Or another idea would be to cut pieces of index card or something to insert. This could be switched out each time and not build up grit?
-
I'm largely unconcerned with cosmetic issues too. A few people on this forum have claimed they can tell they are slower with scratched blade sides, so maybe it isn't just cosmetic. Intuitively, it makes sense, if you consider boats in water, and studded tires on ice - but those are a lot different. Without objective measurements under conditions similar to figure skating, it's hard to tell.
In my case, I'm personally certain that getting stronger would make much more difference than minor scratches.
To emphasize Kaitsu's response in Reply #37, why would scratches on surfaces that do not contact the ice at all cause slower glides? Intuitively, it doesn't make sense at all (to me). Are you concerned about some higher-order aerodynamic effects?
-
I will later take measurements of the thickness of my old Matrix I blades. Near the bottom of the blades, they were ground a little thinner than the rest of the runner - and in a way that pre-scratched them there - which I don't understand since they were Stainless 440 (440C??) alloy blades. It's hard to tell if any additional scratches I create could possibly matter. But measurements of the old Matrix I blades won't do anyone much good - people bought out Jackson Ultima's remaining stock rather quickly (I think a few weeks or less) after they stopped making them, and it's very hard to find them or the chassis for sale over the Internet.
I realize that the Matrix I blades have been discontinued many years now. My question concerns the width, not the thickness, of the runner. To avoid ambiguity, what I mean by the width is shown in the attached pix (Paramount blade in this instance). If you are able to use the Pro-Filer as is, the width of the Matrix I runner must be much greater than the width of the current Matrix runners; so I'm curious as to what it is. The width will likely vary along the length of the blade. A typical value near the middle will do. Thanks.
-
Oh. You mean what I think of as the height of the exposed portion of the runner...
In other words, the height (vertical dimension when blade is placed on the ice) of the portion of the runner that has to fit in the gap.
I've got to dig my calipers out of storage.
-
No need for calipers. A ruler will do. Thanks.
-
No need for calipers. A ruler will do. Thanks.
With my current blades ("Supremes" - freestyle blades) installed, there is about 1/8" height of thinly ground blade at the bottom (in the orientation we skate in; also maybe it was lightly larger when I started using the blades)), followed by about 1/8" indented portion (Why? I assume it is decorative, or to save a few grams, but if the Pro-Filer like tool didn't have a deep enough gap, it would matter.), followed by a variable width of parallel sided runner, for a total (including the two 1/8" heights) of about 1/2" near the stanchions, to .75" at the center.
Hey, I just figured something out about the new replaceable runner Matrix RXS blades (https://jacksonultima.com/pages/matrix-rxs).
I already knew they made each chassis have one particular non-replaceable toe pick - which means you need a different chassis for each type of blade - whereas the older designs had the same chassis for all runners. The toe picks were included in the runners, as with most blades.
But that non-replaceable toe pick also means you wouldn't want to trim the toe pick when the blade starts to wear down. So you maybe have to replace runners more often...
Interestingly, the RXS ad says you don't need a special blade holder - because the runners fit all machines. But to take advantage of that, I guess you'd have to remove the runner every time you sharpened it. And it looks like they still attach with those stupid bolts that use the tiny hex inset, that will probably wear out if you do that a lot.
-
Query, thanks for the info on the Matrix I.
-
My old Matrix I Dance blades don't have the same measurements as my Matrix 1 Supreme runners. They are substantially less tall, and they lack the indented portion - the sides of the Dance runners are parallel. Hard to take accurate measurements without mounting them - which I don't want to do, because it wears out the hex key holes in those soft bolts. Anyway, all my runners are at least somewhat used, so the measurements don't reflect what they were like new.
I also notice the Supreme runners (of which I only have one pair) have had enough metal removed that they will soon be hard to sharpen with my Pro-Filer, because of that indented portion, which will probably make them flop around - unless I add tape to create a tighter fit at the bottom, so the top doesn't matter. Which, as we've discussed before is a bit of a hassle and a challenge to do right, so that the edges are even.
-
According to my understanding in this thread we have talked about chromed areas scratching, but I might have understood wrongly.
No, not the chrome plated area, unless you wear down your blades a lot more than most people do before replacing them. Only the part of the blade that touches the ice matters.
By the time the chrome plate touches, you have had to trim off so much of the toe pick, that it's forward/back location has changed significantly. Of course at that point you could remount the blades a bit forwards or back, but that effectively changes the length of the blade, significantly too. And you are less high off the ice, so it changes that characteristic of the blades too. I like to extend blade life as much as I reasonably can, but long before that time I think it makes sense to just replace the blades.
I also believe that if you did keep sharpening worn blades to the point the part of the sides of the blade that touches the ice are chrome plated, you wouldn't get very good edges, because the Chrome isn't hard, and would flake off - but tstop4me suggested that might be wrong.
Have you played more with your 3D printed sharpening tool? how does it compare in edge quality to your powered sharpening machines?
I guess you had to design it for one grit and brand sandpaper, since different grits and brands have different thicknesses.
-
Revised wooden version:
1. Take a 2x2 board (exact size not important), cut it to the desired tool length.
2. Use a bench circular saw, jig saw, or band saw, that has a fence accurately parallel to the blade. Set blade to be perpendicular to table. (A handheld jig saw with a fence or strip cutting attachment might work, would be less accurate.) Recut the sides and ends of the board to be perpendicular to each other.
3. Mark the center of the board on one of the ends. (The center is at the intersection of the two diagonals.)
4. Use a compass to draw a circle about that center with the desired ROH radius on that end.
5. Find the middle of one of the sides of the end, and draw a line with a pencil from it to the center, and to the other side.
6. Cut a gap centered on that line, as accurately as you can, from one side to the circle or a bit further. Use the fence (or strip cutting attachment) to keep cut straight. The blade should be slightly wider than the skating blade - which might eliminate the possibility of using a jig saw or band saw, if it isn't wide enough.
-
7. Recut the gap side so the gap is a little less high than the exposed height of the blade runner.
8. Use a hole saw with the ROH radius to cut out that circle, using a drill press with a vice to hold the block in place. The cut hole will be your sanding drum. It will fit the hole somewhat loosely, to make our tool.
8.5 Recut the other sides so the tool isn't too large.
9. On the side opposite that gap, near the center length use a self tapping screw to create a thread (or: can a tap and die kit cut wood?) deep enough to go just past the circle. Replace the screw with a bolt with the same thread. Use it to press the sanding drum against the side of the hole next to the gap, locking the sandpaper in place while you use the tool.
10. Cut sandpaper, loosen the bolt, and insert sandpaper. It should be long enough to extend most of the way to either side of the bolt. If it doesn't extend past the hole, the sanding drum won't center accurately on the hole. Tighten the bolt.
11. Cut tape that is a bit wider than the gap is high, to a length longer than the tool is long. I use Scotch tape on my Pro-filer. Pull tape taut, insert into the gap, touching the sanding drum so it aligns parallel, and pulled against the side of the gap to make it stick. Stick the extra tape to the ends and sides of the tool. Repeat on the other side of the gap. Briefly insert the blade and push against the tape hard on each side, to make it stick better. Add more layers until the blade slides through snugly.
12. Re-insert sanding drum and sandpaper, tighten the bolt, and sharpen a cheap discarded blade, like on the old skates that ice rinks throw away. The inside edge will be longer than the outside edge, or vice versa, because the gap probably isn't exactly centered on the hole.
13. So: Discard the tape and retape, using more layers to one side, iterating step 10 & 11 until it is properly centered.
Thoughts, ideas for improvement?
-
Thoughts, ideas for improvement?
Yes, I have a lot of thoughts. Please implement this ingenious plan of yours and come back afterwards to tell us how your wooden tool works and if you got within the 0.01 tolerance you mentioned earlier.
In the meantime, I'm going to the eye doctor. I did grind the blades with the tool I printed. Enthusiastic about the given tips, I printed a jig that holds the printed sharpener in place, with the groove facing downwards. I lie on the floor with a skate in my hand and move skate against the pro-filer above me. It was a bit difficult. The problem was that my eyes are now full of steel dust and I can't see if the blades were scratched and if the scratches were on the mounting screws or which skates I even sharpened.
When my eyes are recovered, I have planned to print Profiler type of sharpener which has same profile as the blade what I am sharpening. Means it has same lenght as the blade I am sharpening. I can tune the profiler so that I can do 3 or 4 sweet spots and many other cool things. Unfortunately I cannot describe how it works, but its going to be revolutionary.
-
No, not the chrome plated area, unless you wear down your blades a lot more than most people do before replacing them. Only the part of the blade that touches the ice matters.
But the concern about scratches that other skaters have addressed have been specifically on the chrome-plated surfaces. Scratches on the chrome-plated surfaces are readily visible; whereas, those on the chrome relief are not (here we're talking about typical scratches picked up from a sharpening operation, not aberrant deep gouges).
-
The problem was that my eyes are now full of steel dust and I can't see if the blades were scratched and if the scratches were on the mounting screws or which skates I even sharpened.
I hope you use protective goggles when sharpening with the powered sharpening machine, or working in a machine shop. Many people do. I admit I don't when using Pro-Filer but I've never had that produce dust that got in the air. I have used goggles while using a drill or saw.
tstop4me - but my concern is only on scratches that might conceivably add extra drag while skating.
-
Perhaps the woodworking tools I was talking about using, which cost a fewl thousand dollars, are less available without high expense to the average skater than adequate quality 3D printers? Hard core woodworking hobbyists buy such tools, but perhaps few skaters.
I don't know is how accurate the types of 3D printer are that are widely available to the general public in public libraries. The 3D printer I saw used was consistent to a mm or two. But someone said that was poor.
A high end skate blade holder I've seen allowed adjustment of the blade height - which directly affects the centering of the wheel on the hollow - by 1/2000 inch. But I think that is overkill, that the tool need not be shaped that accurately. I doubt woodworking tools could do that well.
I use Pro-Filer by alternating skate or tool orientation every few strokes, to compensate for tool asymmetries and irregularities. And I use enough tape to fit the blade quite snugly, which locks down the geometry, so gravity doesn't matter, and I can hand-hold the tool at any orientation. I think it gives excellent consistent results, by feel, though I don't have the highest accuracy tools to check it.
Using those techniques, would library quality 3D printers do well enough?
Blademaster only offers 2 ROH's (http://blademaster.com/web/usa/en/2560-retail-products), 1/2" and 3/4", and their website (https://blademaster.com/web/en/retail-products/386-pfpd2.html?search_query=pfpd2&results=1) suggests both tools are for hockey blades, which are much thinner.
If Kaitsu makes his specification files available to the public, and creates files for many different ROH's, maybe they could go to a public library and make their own tools in the desired ROH, that are good enough, for people who use those techniques. Or he could sell his tools to the general public?
-
Here you can see printed tool in action. https://youtu.be/aVAc4zSBo4M?si=pU46lCWhbRH1-Ifc (https://youtu.be/aVAc4zSBo4M?si=pU46lCWhbRH1-Ifc)
-
Kaitsu, your conclusion is that your polishing tool reduced friction, but rounded the edges. There are some details of your friction tests that we could get into, but I don't think those are important. With respect to the rounding of the edges, what happens if you then use your ultrafine-grit whetstone along the edges (on the sides outside the hollow)? Does that restore sharp edges?
Alternatively, I had previously given details for burnishing the edges (both inside and outside the hollow). If you have tight control of ROH, it would be interesting (after grinding and polishing) to burnish the entire hollow, as I discussed previously in
http://skatingforums.com/index.php?topic=8855.0 Reply# 10.
You can 3D print a proper chassis (holder) for the commercial tungsten carbide rod.
-
I know that my friction test is far from the perfect. Example plastic piece I used does not contact the edges which are used in the skating. However I didn't have any other ideas how to witness visually the friction reduction with the existing pieces what I had on my hands in that moment. I repeated my non polished / polished test couple times by re-grinding the blade and re-polishing it. This is not shown in the video.
Paramount skate’s runners side surfaces are presenting me the dream side surfaces. They are plain grind to be flat without any bevel edges, which exists on most of the blades where chrome is removed. I truly hate when side surfaces are beveled / rounded already at the factory. Wilson might be the worst advanced blade manufacturer in this perspective. As I hate this feature so much, I am not going to shape side surfaces with burnishing tool to look like what I criticize.
However, I have lots of experience where skater says that skates are terrible to skate, even they have been recently sharpened (somewhere else). They feel too sharp. When I look the blades, I can feel that they feel extremely sharp when I test them with finger. ROH can be same as I would do, so root cause is not too small ROH. When I have reground the blades, they are happy. In my theory, there are two possible root causes which explains this. In some reason if you use coarse grinding wheel, edges feel sharper than with fine wheel. This is opposite what I could imagine in the first hand. This can explain also why profiler sharpening might feel sharper that what I have experienced with my printed tool. I don't think the printed cylinder is the problem causer in my tests, but I might to clarify this later by machining cylinder from the metal.
Another very plausible root cause for too sharp edges is that skate tech tilts honing stone too much in the deburring phase and/or uses too much force, causing burnishing (deforming) affect. Personally I have always been against the edges deforming. This is just my personal opinion, but I encourage everyone to sketch it to paper what does it mean when side surface is beveled / rounded. Note in your sketch that you are not skating in the way that blade would be in 90 degrees angle to the ice. Edge beveling / rounding issues materializes when you tilt the blade. I might be also wrong in this matter. Maybe this beveled / rounded edge is the "secret" why people like so much from the Wilson blades.
-
And one more note... Edges rounding does not happen evenly. Some areas on the blade does have less rounding than the other. This makes "repairing" with burnishing even more difficult.
-
The Pro-Filer figure skating kits had two tools - one with a diamond dust coarse grit, one with an (aluminum oxide??) fine grit, which can be used instead of polishing. The hockey kits only had a coarse tool.
At a guess, your sandpaper is quite coarse - maybe as much or more so than the coarse stone in the Pro-Filer kits.
What grit sandpaper did you use? Did you consider switching to a fine grain after the initial sharpening?
It looked like your tool worked pretty well.
Were the edges fairly even?
How does the total sharpening and polishing time compare with the time you would have spent with your powered sharpening machine?
I love the simplicity of your friction measurement device! But I wonder if relative friction of rough and smooth surfaces is comparable with that tool and rink-temperature ice - partly because ice would deform more. I guess you could try to balance an ice cube of the right temperature on top, and slide it, but that would be very hard to balance. But the vertical force would be much less than the weight of a skater. Doing a really good friction test on an edge would be hard. E.g., you could mount a properly weighted blade on a pivoting device at an angle over the ice. Somewhat like Sydney Broadbent of iceskateology.com did. Probably very expensive to build. I'm sure some people would still find something to complain about the test.
If you talk to many skaters, some, like me, like their blades very sharp, and some don't. But the majority of skate techs do slightly dull the edges after sharpening, like you did, though I've usually seen it done with a flat stone.
-
Grit size in sand paper was 800. I am not sure if your 800 grit is same as ours. Nevertheless, its already very fine grit.
As the material removal in the polishing is so less, I didn't monitor how much polishing affected to the edges evenness. As long as I round the edges, it does not matter how well I can keep edges even.
Polishing will take less time than what I use for power grinding. In the polishing I do not need to make measurements and height adjustments after every few passes like I do in the power grinding. Its more straight forward proses. If I could get mirror finish without rounding the edges, I could use that extra time on special cases. I believe the difference in the gliding properties is so small that it does not make sense to make it for the skaters which maintain their skates in 6-12 month's cycles and walk in the concrete floors without covers.
-
Thanks to Marc sharing some improvement ideas, I was able to tune my 3D-print so that edge rounding is not happening so easily. Support surfaces are now 5mm taller (more in chromed area) than in Profiler and I added bigger chamfer to the intersection of the cylinder and guiding groove. With this tool I was able to polish blade hollow first time without rounding the edge. One problem in taller support surfaces is that they scratch chromed side surfaces. Protection taping is still needed. I printer three tools to get 400 800 and 1200 grit tools. I need to collect more experiences if one print works better than the other, even they should be identical. I should also find some volunteer whom allows me to test these tools to his/her blade. One important thing would be that skater would be skilled enough to give reliable feedback.
-
I should also find some volunteer whom allows me to test these tools to his/her blade. One important thing would be that skater would be skilled enough to give reliable feedback.
Given the variable ice conditions from session to session, it will be difficult to do A-B (polished-unpolished) comparison tests. I think you'll need an advanced skater, equally adept on both feet, to skate with an unpolished blade on one foot and a polished blade on the other foot (and repeat tests interchanging the foot with the polished blade and the foot with the unpolished blade to check for bias).
-
I did notice your video showed a fair amount of what I think is sandpaper abrasive grain removed from the sandpaper. Much more than I've noticed with the Pro-Filer.
I wonder if sandpaper holds the grain less well than the abrasive grains embedded in the resin cylinders. Of course, there might also be different quality sandpapers, and different quality abrasive cylinders.
I don't know if the removed grain matters much.
I'm really impressed by the elegant simplicity of your method of making a substitute for Pro-Filer. How good a job do you feel it does? Is it much slower than the professional grade powered sharpening tools you've got? Do you plan to offer your 3D printed tools for sale?
Have your eyes healed? How did the steel dust get into them? Did you wear eye protection? (I admit I usually don't with Pro-Filer either, though I used to.) Or did it get on your hands, and you rubbed your eyes?