Talk:File (tool)

message: Three Square Files
Somebody wrote in the edit that obviously a triangular file is not square - it has 60 deg. angles, not 45 deg.  That is true, of course.  Historically, though, triangular files are often called "three square files", so it is accurate on that level, one of slang.  Round files are also called "rat-tail files" for obvious reasons.  It is scientifically wrong, but culturally correct, in other words.  Thanks, cool place, WikiP.  Jjdon (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have put a merge tag on File (tool) asking it to be merged into File (metalwork) File (metalwork) asking it to be merged into File (tool). The metalwork article is much better, and as a layman I don't know if there's really two terms here or not. So, if somebody "in the biz" wants to tell me I'm an idiot for proposing such a merge (since the metalworking template does list both) then all I ask is a response here explaining to a layman like myself why they shouldn't be merged. Thanx! — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 13:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, I agree. But files are not only used to shape metal, but also wood and plastics. So I would argue that the good stuff should be merged to File (tool) and the File (metalwork) be made into a redirect. The file disambiguation page should also be fixed. Luigizanasi 06:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: reverse merge - to file (tool): It's way overdue for a merge but I'd be tempted to merge the other way, (tool) is a broader specifier than (metalwork). FWIW my contributions to File (metalwork), in both images and text, have been major and it doesn't worry me if it's merged to file (tool). If I had found file (tool) first my edits would have gone there instead. — Graibeard (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved this discussion, and reversed order of merge. I agree 'tool' is the better of the descriptions, but wasn't really thinking too much that day and did my usual criteria of 'merge the little scrawny article into the big one.' — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 10:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: merge - to file (tool):as per above. Long overdue Bridesmill 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Steve Summit (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: New to Wikipedia and non-expert in metalworking, however...
I believe the wording is incorrect
"Generally, as with saws, the more teeth per inch, the softer the material it is intended is remove..."
Shouldn't it say the "fewer teeth per inch" (i.e. a more corse file)?  
Jmlunds 21:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fewer teeth per inch, the rougher and more aggressive the file is.  For both harder and softer materials, bulk removal is done with a rough file, then the finishing is preformed with sequentially finer and finer files.  It doesn't have squat to do with how hard or soft the material is.  That whole part should be gone.  Even though it alludes to saw blades, this is also incorrect.  One may easily cut aluminum with a 4 TPI (or less) blade, and in many situations this is the correct blade choice.  The tooth profile on files, saws, endmills, single point tools, etc., is what controls the cutting characteristics in various materials.  The teeth per inch controls chip clearance and cutting pressure.  Too many teeth, on both files and on saws, spreads the pressure out over more surface area.  Trying to cut through a 10"x10" block of aluminum with a 14 tpi blade will dull the blade due to rubbing, which in turn causes grabbing, heat buildup, and eventual blade failure.  Likewise, trying to cut thin-walled tubing with a 2 tpi blade will wipe the teeth off the saw.  Back to files: In rough files, the teeth can hold a larger volume of swarf which results in a deeper cut per stroke, but leave a jagged finish.  In fine files, the teeth clog quickly, resulting in far less material removal per stroke and requiring frequent cleaning in exchange for a finer finish. Both kinds of file will cut hard and soft materials equally well.  An inexperienced filer will mistake the greater difficulty of rough filing harder materials using a low-TPI file as a problem with the file itself. While a finer file may apparently relieve the problem, the finer file is just taking a less aggressive cut.  Less aggressive cut, less power required per stroke, and the user believes the finer file is cutting 'better.' - Toastydeath 04:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? wording incorrect 

message: Diff (Thanks, Andy!) I'd like to know more about the hardening of file steel. It certainly can't be dead soft, and I suspect it is not tempered to a state as "soft" as chisel steel, for example. The times I've used file steel for projects, I've often annealed it before shaping, usually re-hardening it after, not always tempering it then. Since files have a long history of being produced in commercial quantities, I'd be interested to see more info on differential hardening of their teeth. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some information about the case hardening process used on steel files. Note that it's not a differential hardening process. Wizard191 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardening

message: I'm not a Wiki expert, so I won't touch the article, but I see no mention of escapement files.  They are a classification of short, (very) thin files with bastard-cut or embedded diamond surfaces, similar to needle files in form and function but smaller.  Typical dimensions are on the order of approximately 10 cm (4 in.) in length and 3-5 mm (1/8-3/16 in.) in width.  Best used for very fine work on small pieces, escapement files are commonly used by clock-/watch-makers, as well as in crafting jewelry.  Technotom2001 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has yet incorporated this material, so I have boldly taken the liberty of doing so myself.  It is not my intention to step on toes, but no discussion on the classification of files is complete without describing of escapement files.  Being an artisan jeweler, I can attest to their singularly being suited to certain types of work.  Technotom2001 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for adding this info. It is a good improvement in coverage. — ¾-10 00:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escapement Files? 

message: Dreadnought and millenicut are obscure and not commonly used in the US. The few references that turn up resolve to UK based tool vendors. The specialized tooth patterns that match the description are common in auto body repair shops where they are used in body files for plastic filler and other soft materials. The curved cut is often called vixen style in North America after the brand that held the patent many decades ago. The brand still exists but the name has become largely generic as the pattern is now sold by multiple manufacturers.
Here's some background and a sampling of products from various vendors: 
https://www.wonkeedonkeetools.co.uk/files/what-is-a-vixen-file 
https://stonesculptorssupplies.com/9-vixen-file/ 
https://www.yardstore.com/14-flex-vixen-file-single-cut 
https://www.yardstore.com/sheet-metal-hand-tools/miscellaneous/hand-files-vixen/new/vixen-8-with-tang-curved-tooth 
https://www.tinmantech.com/products/hand-tools/files-holders/car-body-files/ 
https://www.lasaero.com/products/article/N037VLVPX 
Note that Wonkee Donkee Tools, a UK site, mentions that vixen files are also known as dreadnought files. A brief search didn't turn up a US site that made the connection. There doesn't seem to be a corresponding term for millenicut in use in North America.
76.121.140.140 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreadnought files are vixen style in North America 

message: The article states:
″Most files have teeth on all faces, but some specialty (sic) flat files have teeth on only one face or one edge, so that the user can come right up to another edge without damaging the finish on it.″
A significant proportion of my files have a safe edge, and I have several dozen of all sorts. The main exceptions are those with a curved face as they don't have flat 'edges'; it's not really a 'speciality'.--Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safe Edges 

message: While not here listed, I understand these shallow-triangular-cross-section files/hones, with the widest edge toothless/gritless, sharpen wood-cutting handsaw teeth, where the teeth are steep triangular in shape. Could these be described?
Briancady413 (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Feather Files