Err, I have the plane and am aware of the thick blade. I just don't use it for the reason I specified. What part do you think I haven't researched?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Simpson
Err, I have the plane and am aware of the thick blade. I just don't use it for the reason I specified. What part do you think I haven't researched?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Simpson
Probably trying to understand how LV can claim a thumbscrew and bowed blade is a unique feature. It’s only been used on a every #80 style scraper for 150 years.
Has anyone trialled a light camber on these thicker rigid style scraper irons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chase
Hmmm, BTDT...
Attachment 375572
Stanley #80.....
Indeed :-). I expect that they would have trouble patenting that as an invention under the KSR-v-Teleflex precedent, but you never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Taran
The statement loses context without the accompanying pictures, as LV is making a side-by-side comparison with what I would assume is the Stanley 112.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Taran
I have had a L-N 212 for some 20 years. I use it mostly for spot removal of tearout on jointed edges, as it is easier than a card scraper to maintain a fair surface. I have never used it with a hook, just a honed 45 degree bevel. Set with a very slight (on the order of .001") projection, it produces fine shavings in hardwoods and works quite well for me. As the blade dulls I lean it forward slightly to increase the projection.
I may experiment with a hook, but I expect that it would require more frequent burnishing and resetting than I sharpen presently- the setting of the iron is the fiddly part.
I just watched the LN video on using the #112 and I guess I’ve been taking the wrong approach. Deneb claims it’s intended to take exceptionally fine shavings on the order of .001 or thinner. I’ve certainly been trying to be more aggressive than that. Maybe I’ll monkey with it this afternoon and see how it goes.
That makes sense. Very thin shavings on hard/exotic woods are where unhooked scrapers do best. I keep a couple thin/flexible unhooked card scrapers on hand for exactly that. With that said I don't see what a scraping *plane* buys you for that sort of use case. IMO the planes (including the #80) are most useful when you want to comfortably take more aggressive shavings over larger areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Luter
BTW you can take very thin shavings with a hooked scraper as well, particularly if you set a fine hook. In that case the hook retains the advantages of cutting at a much lower angle, and leaving a glassier surface.
The biggest challenge with burnishing is preserving an adequately sharp and clean edge. To get the best possible surface quality you want the tip of the hook to be as sharp and smooth as the edge you would put on a smoothing plane. To do that you need to start with a pristine edge and then use light pressure with a smooth burnisher, taking successive strokes at increasing angles to "sneak up" on the final geometry. If you whale on the burnisher or try to take it to the final angle all in one go you'll end up with a crushed edge and a ragged hook that leaves tracks all over the place. Ditto for the approach of using a pointed object to "adjust" the hook angle after the fact, IMO.
On a related note, burnishing a scraper work-hardens the tip of the iron. This is both a good and bad thing. It's a good thing because it actually increases edge life relative to the unhooked scraper blade (and note that most scraper blades are pretty soft at ~Rc50).
It's a bad thing if you don't file away all of that work-hardened steel the next time you sharpen. I can't count the number of times I've obtained an unsatisfactorily jagged edge when polishing a scraper (the final step prior to burnishing), and seen the tell-tale "shininess" of residual work-hardened patches when examining it under magnification.
Perhaps you've never suffered from arthritis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chase
I've always used my card scrapers for just the slightest of material removal. Mostly creating more dust than shavings per se. Just a final kiss after smoothing. This is probably the intent. If you are doing much material removal you've got the wrong tool.
Scrapers have an incredibly wide range of applications. Somebody who is truly skilled in their use (not me) could easily employ them for basically everything but roughing. If the applications you describe were all that existed then "heavy scrapers" like the 80 and 112 would never have been created.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat Barry
The classic example where you want to take more than the "slightest of material" is for smoothing extremely difficult surfaces like burl. Admittedly we have more alternatives now that we've regained the proper use of the cap iron (and certainly my own scraper use has fallen off a bit since then).
Stewie,
Yes, I always use a slight camber.
David
I have the LV version of that plane. I sharpen the blade, put it back in the plane (on a flat surfacs) and set the blade flush. Then change the angle of the blade until it takes shavings.
OK, just for kicks i tried setting my LV scraping plane (112 equivalent) for moderately aggressive shaving on a maple offcut. The shavings range from under 1 to ~2 mils thick and basically look like plane shavings. The resulting surface has decent sheen, much better than I can do with sandpaper or an un-hooked scraper but worse than I can achieve with a smoothing plane.
Attachment 375661
This isn't rocket science or even remotely difficult. It takes a little practice to figure out how to turn a consistent hook without mangling the edge, but that's about it.
I can't understand for the life of me why L-N is providing the advice that they are. I understand that they cater to a lot of "well-heeled amateurs" who want stuff that works out of the box, but correct scraper setup is one of those things that everybody has to learn, preferably sooner rather than later. As noted above their assertion than thickening the blade eliminates the need for burring is incomprehensibly bogus - Adding more metal to the top of the iron doesn't change the cutting mechanics down at the edge.