Has anyone trialled a light camber on these thicker rigid style scraper irons.Originally Posted by Patrick Chase
Member
Has anyone trialled a light camber on these thicker rigid style scraper irons.
In Memoriam
Stewie,
Yes, I always use a slight camber.
David
Member
Appreciate the feedback David. This morning I tested my Stanley #81 with a light camber across the cutting edge, on a Jarrah plane stock I am currently working on. A 30 degree primary bevel on the bench grinder, followed by a 45 degree secondary bevel on a sharpening stone. The back of the blade was then worked over the stone to remove the burr.
Member
Stewie, did you hit that with a toothing plane before scraping?
I'm guessing "yes" from the ribbon-like quality of the shavings.
Member
Patrick; no I did not use a toothing plane. What your seeing are shavings straight from the scraper plane.
Contributor
Whenever I encounter one of these discussions, I always look to see what they did in the old days. My thinking is with all the work that people did for their livelihood back in the old days, if there was a need for a thick, 1/8" scraping iron they would have made one. They didn't. All the ones I've ever seen are spring steel and much thinner. I think this is a case of LN thinking that there was some good justification for this sort of iron, but in practice, it just isn't there. I will say again that the great virtue of scrapers is how fast and easy they can be sharpened. I even roll and reroll a burr without doing a single bit of filing or stoning. I rarely stone my scrapers and get a great shaving.
I do have the plane, and I do have the thick iron, but I never use it. Takes too long to prepare and too long to maintain. Having said that, I rarely use the 212, except when working unruly small areas that require that kind of control.
YMMV
Member
Whenever I encounter these type of open forum discussions I look for those members that can validate their claims by providing some photos.
After flattening the top surface of Tiger Myrtle with a smoothing plane;
Moving on to a scraper plane;
How long did it take to resharpen that cutting edge on the scraper iron. It was as quick as re-honing the edge on that smoothing plane iron.
The scraped top surface revealed;
Last edited by Stewie Simpson; 01-07-2018 at 12:06 AM.
Contributor
Stewart,
Shall I take a picture of all the scraping planes I own with thin, original spring steel blades installed? Not sure how that adds to the discussion or the point I made.
Member
Pete; it would certainly benefit the OP if you supplied a photo of the shavings from a well tuned 212.
Last edited by Stewie Simpson; 01-07-2018 at 12:49 AM.
Member
That's one trick I haven't mastered. My shavings look OK but I get more surface tracking/striation than i like when I re-roll the burrs on my scrapers without filing/stoning. The work-hardened burr is certainly more brittle than virgin spring steel, so I probably need to go about re-turning it more gradually/gently or something along those lines.
Member
Pete undoubtedly knows this, but I think there are a few reasons why almost everybody used (and uses) thin spring steel:
- It's inexpensive. Blue-hard 1095 sheet has been ubiquitously available for a very long time. If you want to save some money on scrapers, then head on over to McMaster-Carr or any other supplier of quality metals. The classic Sandvik scraper is 0.032", and the Stanley #112 is 3/64" = 0.047" per Derek (the LV version is 0.055"). You could make 8 #112-sized irons out of that 4" x 24" x 0.05" sheet that they sell for all of $31.41. It might even make sense to do so (including the value of your time).
- It's stiff enough to do the job in skilled hands.
- It's flexible enough to be cambered, which provides a fair degree of control for working into low spots and keeping the corners off the work. This is done by directly flexing the scraper in the case of a card, and via the camber screw in the #80 and the LV planes.
- As a bonus, cambering stiffens the scraper quite a bit and reduces the required thickness. In engineering we call this a "virtuous cycle".
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 01-07-2018 at 1:14 AM.
Contributor
Thanks for linking my article, Patrick. This was probably written about 10 or so years ago, and is a comparison of thick and thin scraper plane blades. In a nutshell, they produced similar results, but the thicker blade was more pleasant to use (quieter!).
Both were capable of continuous shavings, such as Tasmanian Oak, here ...
To answer one earlier question - why does LN recommend a blade sans hook? - they suggest that a hook is for advanced users. In other words, the blade-without-a-hook is an easy set up recommended to beginners.
Personally, I do not use scraper planes, and probably have not done so for about 10 years, and very lightly in the 10 years before then. In recent years, since the re-introduction of the chipbreaker, I have not even looked at a scraper plane. Before then, a high cutting angle was usually sufficient in even the most interlocked wood. On the other hand, I do use card scrapers or cabinet scrapers (I prefer the latter term) because these excel at smoothing small sections, or curved sections ... scraper planes are designed to smooth long, flat sections. They are one-shot tools and lack the flexibility I treasure in a cabinet scraper.
A few years ago I discovered thick cabinet scrapers. I made one out of the rear of a 1/8" plane blade. This is sharpened to a fine wire on a bench grinder. No other preparation is needed ...
Used here to shape and smooth the inside (concave) of a bow drawer front ...
It is amazing the fine finish that is achieved off such a crude edge.
How does this help in setting up scraper plane blades? Essentially, there are many methods of use, and you need to find the one that fits with your work method or need. Experiment.
Regards from Cape Town
Derek
Member
Enquiring minds still want to know how you got that iron-bodied 212 :-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
