Sergio: You are right. I took this thread off topic somewhat. The Hannes Vector jig was mentioned early on when discussing secondary bevels and I took that further. I don't believe that this was apples and oranges, but I admit that it was close.
One thing became clear in this discussion before I jumped in with both feet, and that is, what is the "secondary bevel". With reference to the Hannes jig, Hannes says that the small (1/16") part of the tool that is cutting is the "rubbing bevel". The larger bevel that takes away from the cutting edge much more steel is the "secondary bevel". The secondary bevel is created by grinding off the heel of the first bevel created when grinding the tool. Then, the final short bevel that knocks of the sharp heel closest to the handle is the "tertiary bevel". I'm not here to argue those terms. I just wanted to be able to make it clear what I was referring to. I was using Hannes' terms. Bill says "The secondary bevel should be approximately 1/16 inch or a hair more in width." That is just the opposite of what Hannes says. Hannes refers to the 1/16" bevel as the "rubbing bevel". The secondary bevel is the long bevel that was created when the sharp heel was ground away from the heel of the tool to create the "rubbing bevel". The secondary bevel ensures that the heel of the tool is not trying to push the rubbing bevel off the surface of the piece when turning the inside.
Bill: I am using the jig as shown in Hannes' two videos. The secondary bevel is not ground using either of the side holes in the plate. He uses only the middle hole in the center of the plate to grind the secondary bevel. That is what I was doing. Then, I was "bumping off the back" using the hole in the center of the plate closest to the wheel. This is how Hannes does it on both videos. I have had no personal instruction from him, so if that differs from the videos, I can't comment.
As to my comment about the bevel taking the shape of the wheel, what I meant was that the wheel is round and imparts a convex shape to whatever is ground on it. (A belt, by contrast, does not. The bevel coming off a belt is flat. A 6" wheel leaves a greater convex surface than an 8".) As an aside, Alan Lacer talks about this at some length in his skew videos.
The point that I was trying, unsuccessfully, to make was that I did not understand how the jig could duplicate the "fat cheeks" that Hannes used to put on his tool in his freehand days. In his freehand sharpening video, he makes a point of saying that to get his grind, you need to hold the tool at the very end of the handle and rotate the handle (not swing it) clockwise and counter clockwise to get the "fat cheeks". My point was that the jig does not and cannot do that. The tool cannot rotate in the jig. It is held firm in the jig and swung in an arc. I believe that Brian is right. You don't get the same grind. You get a series of facets that could be rounded to make one continuous bevel if you wanted to grind them freehand after using the jig.
It's not nosey to ask what I had hoped to gain by buying the Vector. I was turning, or trying to turn, a set of lamp shades. They are finished out at 1/16" or thinner, so that they are translucent. I was looking at optimal ways of sharpening to be able to take a very fine cut on thin wood, using as little pressure as possible against the surface to avoid flex. I knew about Hannes and his hats. I had seen his freehand sharpening video. I tried to duplicate his tool profile and failed miserably. When he marketed the Vector as a means of consistently reproducing the "Michelson grind", I ordered one.
Brian: The bore in the part of the jig that holds the tool would not accept anything bigger than 3/4". There is enough aluminum there to bore it out some, if you wanted to, though.
