Author: JMarzluf
Date: 2011-04-04 06:55
Thank you for the clarification with regard to the details of your design. This sounds intriguing indeed. Isolating the adjustments for each axis in this way sounds like an ideal situation. Also, I am particularly impressed with the simple notion of mounting the blade flush with the wall of the "blade/guide block/assembly," to ensure proper alignment with the guide. This should eliminate the most frustrating (for me) aspect of maintaining a gouging machine.
In answer (or not) to your question, I do not know what the proper symmetrical radius should be for a double radius set-up. Nor do I know if a symmetrical approach to double radius gouging will work at all. It still seems to me that the rate of change (of thickness) from the center to the sides of the gouged piece will not be ideal if done with a symmetrical blade. This is based solely on the fact that my machines (an Opus 1, by Robin Driscoll, and a Graff, set up by David Weber) do not have symmetrical blades. I can only assume that the concept of using a symmetrical blade has previously been tested and rejected.
My geometry chops haven't been exercised since high school, but shouldn't it be possible to graph this out somehow? My suggestion would be to aim for a thickness of .60 mm at center, and .40 on the very edge of a piece of 10.25 mm radius cane, pregouged to a width of 8 mm. This is the current result I get with my favorite machine. The side thickness I end up with, measured at the widest point of the shape I use, is right around .47 mm. Of course, the added variable of different shapes is the whole reason why the adjust-ability of the double radius gouge is, in my opinion, beneficial.
With much love and encouragement from your most dedicated would-be beta tester  ,
Jonathan
http://www.marzlufreeds.com/
|
|
The Oboe BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
