Interesting Adam Cherubini blog post

[James Scheffler]

Adam recently wrote about some advantages wooden planes have over metal ones, especially when one has to remove a lot of stock. He has issued a challenge for us to find an old woodie and put it to use.

I have a couple of working wooden planes (a smoother and a skew rabbet), but my experience has been pretty limited. I've been inspired to pull out an old wooden fore plane that I had lying around. It looks a little rough, and I've hesitated to do much with it, but I'm going to give it a try. The blade and chip breaker are sitting in Evaporust as we speak. :) The wedge will definitely need some work, but hopefully not replacement.... The mouth is big enough to drive a city bus through, which is really perfect for this experiment.

Anyway, I thought it was a great post and I hope it will spark some debate over here. :D

Jim

[harry strasil]

I use Woodies and/or Wood bottomed Transitionals depending on which shop I am working in, and they are sharpened the way the old timers did them,
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/irnsrgn/wood/camber001.jpg
Often on old furniture on the back where no one sees you will find the shallow grooves where the cambered fore plane was the last plane used to thickness plane the back boards or panels. And a Jack Woodie (14in. long) was used like a scrub and it was called a Bench plane because it was used to quickly rough material to thickness, then the Fore to smooth out the deeper grooves and then a Trying or Jointer before using the Smooth to finish. Most old Woodies or others you pick up usually have been sharpened with no Camber by the Unknowing mostly modern WWers.

I usually go for 1/16 on the jack, 1/32 on the Fore and just a tad on the Trying, with the Jointer and Smooth straight across with the edges slightly rounded.

[harry strasil]

Ooops, I make the BooBoo, I camber the irons 1/8, 1/16, and 1/32 inch, at a 45 the blade will take half the camber in thickness off each swipe of the tool.

[David Gendron]

I saw Adam's post and it is sure interesting. I liket he woodies a lot, for the same resons he said. I just made my self a scrub plane with a Ulmia woodie I have and it work like a dream, I can take shavings at least 3/64 thick and it is easy! On face grane or on edges, you realy have to be carful at first not to remove to much material!! The wooden planes are much lighter and glide way more easily on the surface of stuff than a metal body plane even with a waxed sole! I would love to get rid of my metal planes and replace them with good wooden ones. But since I,m in canada, and most buyers are in the states and it cost a lot of $ to ship to the states, I,m kind of stock with my metal planes for now!!

[David Gendron]

Jr., when you say 1/8, do you meen you get 1/8 of an incheat the corner of the iron when put under a straight edge?

[harry strasil]

1/8 is how far the center of the iron sticks out when you put a square across even with the corners.

[David Gendron]

Thank you!

[Ken Whitney]

Just for fun (thank you SketchUp) the radii of Harry's cambers on a 2" iron are:

1/8 = 4"

1/16 = 8"

1/32 = 16"

more or less.

Ken

[Dave Anderson NH]

One of the major misconceptions that modern hand tool woodworkers have is that all planes must have tight mouths. I often use my G-G-G-Grandfathers Union by Chapin fore plane and jointer planes, 22" and 28" respectively. Both have fairly wide open mouths. Both are capable of both coarse and fine shavings without tearout when the irons are sharp. My point is simply that often the mouth can be fairly wide and still give excellent results.

[Jim Koepke]

One of the major misconceptions that modern hand tool woodworkers have is that all planes must have tight mouths. I often use my G-G-G-Grandfathers Union by Chapin fore plane and jointer planes, 22" and 28" respectively. Both have fairly wide open mouths. Both are capable of both coarse and fine shavings without tearout when the irons are sharp. My point is simply that often the mouth can be fairly wide and still give excellent results.

Yes, there are a lot of misconceptions about hand planes and they are not limited to mouth sizing.

A sharp blade with an open mouth will leave a better surface than a dull blade with a tight mouth.

There is a lot taking place when a blade takes a shaving from the surface of a piece of wood.

A sharp blade shears the shaving as it lifts, a dull blade will do more lifting than shearing, which means tear out. Depending on the wood, a tight mouth can help if a wood is prone to tear out even with a sharp blade.

With metal or wood planes if the blade is not supported close to the sole there can be vibration, aka chatter. This bouncing of the blade can leave its mark on the surface no matter how tight the mouth. Moving the frog forward to tighten the mouth may cause the blade to be unsupported and causing less smoothness of the planed surface.

There is a lot going on and this is just some of it.

jim

[David Gendron]

I think ebed angle is also something that can be hard to understand, I meen by that, again if you have adull blade, even with a 55* iron, wont help you much! Interesting what Larry Williams had to say on an other post on plane irons, that the highter the bed angle the more trouble you get with a " double iron" assembly like in metal plane?!?!

[Adam Cherubini]

For all of the collective thinking we've done on this subject, the magazine science projects, the endless forum discussions, it seems to me we're little better off for it. When I encounter woodworkers, they tend not to have planes that work well in my opinion. They fiddle with brass knobs and struggle to produce a shaving (which is always teh exactly width of the iron).

I think we've done ourselves no favors discussing the merits of chip breakers and bed angles. To work effectively by hand, you need at least one plane that can quickly remove wood. And you need a bench and a technique that always you to do that. Maybe we need to think about planes from the work we need them to do instead of analyzing their designs.

Don't mean to be a curmudgeon. I'm asking this question sincerely. (The question is, have we focused our super powers, and we do have super powers, on teh right things for the past 10 years). Seems to me we would have been better off to take a non-innovative approach, simply copy old tools accurately and focus on the work.

Adam

[harry strasil]

Yup, they worked for generations before us, the design was worked out by Woodworkers, the good engineers just copied the user made tools.

Some Humor: or a can of worms: some will not agree with, from an olde man who uses olde tools.LOL

Feddle=misspronunciation of fiddle with.

Polish=make purdy, mirror like, cosmetics

Flatten= a reason to fiddle with cosmetic polishing

Jig, Honing= a must have gadget for those without hand/eye coordination

Fancy blades= a means of disposing of excess income

Tuning=sharpen the blade, wax the sole

Lap=where the shop cat sets while you are setting down fiddling(playing) with your new found toy

.0005 shaving = removing excess material the slow way,actually, bio-degradable, environmentally friendly, renewable scratch paper for narrow minded people, with time to waste

20,000 grit=brown paper bag material

plane bag=see above, also a storage means for a tool too expensive to use or leave in the open air for fear it may actually get used, investment portfolio

Let the Ranting and Raving begin!

[Robert Rozaieski]

Maybe we need to think about planes from the work we need them to do instead of analyzing their designs.

Don't mean to be a curmudgeon. I'm asking this question sincerely. (The question is, have we focused our super powers, and we do have super powers, on teh right things for the past 10 years). Seems to me we would have been better off to take a non-innovative approach, simply copy old tools accurately and focus on the work.

Adam

I don't think you are being a curmudgeon, Adam, I think you have a very valid point. But I don't think the tools are 100% of the problem. I think some of the metal bench planes can be set up to remove stock in a hurry, if that's what people wanted them to do. My old Bailey #5 was set up to do so. I agree with you, that we need to think more in terms of what we want the tools to do rather than their design, but I think the problem is that a lot of folks (especially if they are new to the craft) don't know what they want the tools to do.

Unfortunately, new hand tools are mostly made for and marketed to those of us that don't use them exclusively. Instead, they are designed for the woodworker who does most of their stock prep with machines and uses planes only for trimming and smoothing, because that is how the vast majority of people work. This means that the effort goes into making planes with really tight mouths that are only suitable for taking thin shavings.

I think the reason you see so many planes that are not set up properly to do hand work (other than finish smoothing) in the classes you teach is because of the demand of the majority. Let's face it, very few of us actually do all of our stock prep using hand planes. So the emphasis in all of the magazine articles and message board discussions is on super-tuning every plane to take a sub-thou shaving.

IMO, the use of a dial indicator to measure the thickness of a plane shaving has hurt more than helped the cause (who came up with that idea anyway :)). I think it has caused a kind of unintended challenge to see who can tune all of their planes to take the absolute atom splitting thinnest shaving possible. Then, because taking these sub-atomic shavings requires a plane flattened and tuned to NASA tolerances, that is where the manufacturing dollars go. After all, if the buyer wants a jointer plane with a sole flat to a 0.00000001" tolerance, sides perfectly square to the sole (really, why is that necessary again?), that can take a sub-atomic thin shaving, and they are willing to pay $1000 for said plane, then that's what the manufacturers are going to make. Remember, the customer is always right, no matter how little sense it makes, because that's who pays the bills. The down side is, it makes working by hand seem like a slow, difficult and arduous task, even though those of us who do it regularly know it really isn't and doesn't have to be.

I agree with you that we need to start by looking at tasks rather than tools. If I want to remove stock in a hurry, I want a light weight plane, with a wide open mouth and a thick, heavily cambered iron (and no, not a scrub plane either; I don't know what to do with those short little things). So I'm not going to go out and buy a LN jack plane, not because it isn't a high quality tool, but because it simply can't do what I want it to do without altering it in a way that will destroy its resale value (hey, everyone wants a tight mouth right?).

I feel the thinking of the consumer is slowly coming around, thanks to articles like yours and Chris'. However, I fear that there still just isn't enough consumer demand for the tools you are looking for because there are so few people doing what you do and so much opposition to that thinking coming from the "tight mouth, thin shaving only" crowd. Perhaps another 10 years :rolleyes:.

I think the way to get people more interested is for the magazines to print more project type articles built using only hand tools. Currently, when someone new to the craft opens up a magazine and reads an article about building a piece of furniture that they like, the first thing they see is that they need a table saw, jointer, planer, router, mortiser, etc. to build that piece. Those wanting to build with hand tools need to already know how to build it and then figure out for themselves how to adapt it to hand tools, making any necessary changes to the design on their own. This is very intimidating to someone with little experience so they will typically go with just building it the way the article says. However, if the article showed how to do it without all those fancy machines...;)

IME, it is much easier to adapt a hand tool technique or project to machines rather than the other way around. Show people how to do it with hand tools and you generate interest in using hand tools to do it. Unfortunately, most hand tool articles you see are new tool reviews or just about tuning the tools. That's great, but if you've never used them before, once they are tuned, what do you do with them? Articles about the tools themselves are certainly great, but I think the interest in using those tools needs to be stoked first, otherwise it just becomes a history lesson. While that may be totally appealing to me (I love the historical aspect of the craft), a lot of folks may just not be all that interested in the history piece (especially if they are not into period furniture). Most just want to build stuff when they start out. The interest in the history piece comes later (at least that's how I see it).

The project articles (with the exception of A&M projects) rarely show one how to use hand tools to build stuff. I think the way to generate more interest in properly set up hand tools is to show people how to use them to build things. Like you said, focus on the work, not the tools.

[Robert Rozaieski]

Yup, they worked for generations before us, the design was worked out by Woodworkers, the good engineers just copied the user made tools.

Some Humor: or a can of worms: some will not agree with, from an olde man who uses olde tools.LOL

Feddle=misspronunciation of fiddle with.

Polish=make purdy, mirror like, cosmetics

Flatten= a reason to fiddle with cosmetic polishing

Jig, Honing= a must have gadget for those without hand/eye coordination

Fancy blades= a means of disposing of excess income

Tuning=sharpen the blade, wax the sole

Lap=where the shop cat sets while you are setting down fiddling(playing) with your new found toy

.0005 shaving = removing excess material the slow way,actually, bio-degradable, environmentally friendly, renewable scratch paper for narrow minded people, with time to waste

20,000 grit=brown paper bag material

plane bag=see above, also a storage means for a tool too expensive to use or leave in the open air for fear it may actually get used, investment portfolio

Let the Ranting and Raving begin!

Priceles Jr. :D.

[Mark Maleski]

For all of the collective thinking we've done on this subject, the magazine science projects, the endless forum discussions, it seems to me we're little better off for it.

Speak for yourself, Adam:). C Schwarz' "Coarse, Medium, Fine" opened my eyes to this matter and I've firmly committed to that approach. When my colleague/friend mentioned he received an old 607 for Christmas, I loaned him my DVD and told him he had to watch - "it's important." So there, assuming he's heeded my advice, that's 2 people better off for it (and there just *may* be more;)).

To open the aperture just a bit more...about a year ago there was discussion on SMC as well as the SAPFM forum about creating a site devoted to hand-tool only approach. The need was expressed in a similar manner to what's being discussed in this thread. If that site was ever created, I haven't been able to find it. What we're left with is tracking threads like this one that pop up from time to time on SMC and other forums. Additionally, and more compellingly, a loosely coupled collection of blogs have formed which focus on this area. By following the links in each blog I *think* I've discovered the relevant blogs, and I've found that RSS feeds make it handy to track activity across these blogs. But this remains a loosely coupled discussion, and blogs tend to serve a multicast (one-way) function. I think this community of interest deserves better. (Hey, isn't there a magazine out there looking to transform their web presence?)


Don't mean to be a curmudgeon....Seems to me we would have been better off to take a non-innovative approach, simply copy old tools accurately and focus on the work.

Maybe, but I get along fine with curmudgeons. My wife would tell you I'm happiest when I have something to complain about.:mad:

[Mark Maleski]

Unfortunately, new hand tools are mostly made for and marketed to those of us that don't use them exclusively. Instead, they are designed for the woodworker who does most of their stock prep with machines and uses planes only for trimming and smoothing, because that is how the vast majority of people work.

I'm not sure I see the problem with that. Most woodworkers will never prep stock with their handplanes - that's fine with me (though I think they miss out on some of the fun). Those that take an electron-free approach just have to take an extra step or two to use those planes (or forgoe features such as Bedrock-style adjusters on jacks/jointers). The info isn't that hard to find, though from Adam's blog it sounds like there's more work to be done.

Also, don't overlook firms such as Clark & Williams, Philly Planes, etc that cater to the hand-tools first folks.


If I want to remove stock in a hurry, I want a light weight plane, with a wide open mouth and a thick, heavily cambered iron...I'm not going to go out and buy a LN jack plane, not because it isn't a high quality tool, but because it simply can't do what I want it to do without altering it in a way that will destroy its resale value (hey, everyone wants a tight mouth right?)....

I'm using an old Bailey-style Stanley for the task. I think I'd like it's mouth opened a bit more than I can accomplish with the set screws. The bigger problem is that I find the lever cap works itself loose with the rapid planing motion. While this perhaps is a user error (I *think* I have the cap screw tightened correctly), I can't help but think it's rarely a problem with the wedge approach of wood planes.


I fear that there still just isn't enough consumer demand for the tools you are looking for...

On the other hand, ever try to order a Clark & Williams plane? ;)

[David Cockey]

Who are the "we" that you are refering to?

Seems to me folks can have very different goals in working wood. Goals can be some combination of the resulting item, the experience, self fulfilment through mastering a skill, external praise, attention, relaxation, and many others. Also different constraints, whether self imposed or externally imposed, though I believe some of the "externally" imposed constraints are at their root at least partially self imposed. And the goals can change, even between projects.

[Robert Rozaieski]

On the other hand, ever try to order a Clark & Williams plane? ;)
I think that's the point Adam is trying to make though Mark. The availability of new tools set up properly for someone doing all the work by hand is limited. The demand is growing, but it doesn't seem to be enough for other makers to get in the game. I could probably count the options on one hand, and maybe not even need all 5 fingers.

[Steve Branam]

Hi Adam,

A little fun with applied geometry! Now that Ken has posted the radius of curvature for Harry's edge projections, what radius do you like to use? You say you like to get .060" shavings. Chris Schwarz says in his Handplane Basics DVD he likes to get 30 thousandths, and recommends using an 8" radius, which would be equivalent to the 1/16th edge projection.

In exact numbers, 1/8" is .125", so in round numbers it's .120", and 1/16" is approximately .060".

So if Chris gets .030" shavings with an 8" radius, I would expect that you would get .060" shavings with a 4" radius.

Is that the radius you like to use? How wide are the shavings relative to the iron width? Full-width? 3/4 width?

I note that if you stood an iron up straight after grinding to a 4" radius and set it to project fully from the mouth of the plane, you would get full-width shavings of about .120", feathering off to nothing at the edges. However, since the iron is laid back at the bed angle, that reduces the amount of vertical projection (sine of the angle), so that full-width shavings are more like .060", depending on the precise pitch.

Not trying to be pedantic here, just trying to determine the practical measurements to use when preparing the irons and setting up the cut.

[Robert Rozaieski]

Steve, I'm not Adam, but I think there is one important thing to note about the radius method of determining camber. It is largely dependant on the width of the iron and the bed angle of the plane. A 1½" iron with an 8" radius camber will have a vastly different effective camber than a 2½" iron with an 8" radius camber, at the same bed angle. In the end, the projection of the iron and the depth of cut will be very different between these two planes. Bed angle also makes a difference. The lower the bed angle, the more camber an iron needs for an equivalent cut to the same width iron bedded at a higher bed angle. So as you can see, all the geometry can be extremely confusing. The good thing is, all the geometry is essentially unnecessary.

A much easier way to figure out how much camber you need is to assemble the plane and adjust the iron projection until the depth of cut is where you want it at the center of the cutting edge (for example, 1/32"). You don't even have to measure this, you can simply use a thin test piece of wood, run it over the center of the iron and look at the thickness of the shaving that comes off. If it's to your liking, move on to the next step. If it's too thin or too thick, readjust the depth and try again until it's where you want it.

Then, use a fine sharpie (or layout fluid and an awl) to mark the flat face of the iron where the edges meet the mouth of the plane. Remove the iron and draw a smooth curve on the flat face of the iron from the two marks you made at the outer edges to the cutting edge at the center. Then grind to this curve. No measuring and no geometry involved, and it is completely independant of iron width, bed angle, or any other feature of your plane that may make it different from another. When set up this way, a plane with a 2" wide iron and a 45 degree bed angle may have a very different camber than a plane with a 1" wide iron and a 60 degree bed angle, but both planes will still be set up for the same depth of cut.

[David Weaver]

In my opinion, the biggest reason people don't become proficient with planes is because they don't use only planes for a few projects over a year or two - there's nothing to force people to "get good" with them.

There is a time factor in learning to use planes, but it is not useless time - it's mentally stimulating to understand how they work. Once you do, you have the option of building whatever you need in the future - you're no longer attached to finding what you want used or new, and being constrained by price.

I am included in the group of people who aren't the worlds biggest fan of adjusters and double irons for fine work. My metal planes, however, do not have any trouble with stock removal, and I don't find them that tiring to work with if the wax is nearby. The only wood bottom plane (aside from japanese smoothers from time to time) that I use on a regular basis is an old wooden fore plane.

I think another factor is in materials. Ask someone now if they want to build a nice project out of straight grained medium hardwoods, and they usually say they'd rather build with figured maple, hard maple or ply with solid wood trim. Throw the ply out, hard maple and figured maple aren't the greatest things in the world to work with wooden planes. Cherry and walnut are much nicer to work with, and you get an appreciation for filling out hidden bits with softwoods because they're much easier and faster to work than a project made entirely out of hardwoods.

But, to come to a conclusion like that, you have to have the experience of bulling a common pitch wooden plane through hard maple, etc, without the assistance of machine tools to fall back on.

One last thing - I think another thing that people have to tackle when they want to work hand tools only is where to get plans. that's something I struggle with, and there's nothing at all wrong with my planes. I don't favor everything 300 years old when I build, but the plans for less-than-showy furniture usually include a lot of plywood, no "real" joinery and the need for a hand tool woodworker to go through and lay out joints in the plans, and make changes. That's a pain.

[mike holden]

The basic problem, and Adam and Jr both alluded to this, is that we spend more effort trying to understand the tool rather than what the surface left behind looks like.
After all, it is this surface that we use.

At one demonstration I was at the presenter talked about the goal of sharpening the plane was to make "fine shavings" - I embarassed him by asking out loudly "I dont care about the shavings, I throw those away!"

The important thing is the surface left on the wood that is to be used. Period.

Mike

[David Weaver]

I'd like to know who that presenter is.

The only time I fiddle with fine shavings is when I'm lapping an old tool and want to make sure it's capable of fine work. After that, no issue.

Or once in a while, to work on an area that is swirling grain and creating problems with tearout.

But to follow a fore plane on a table top? That kind of monkey business usually isn't required.

[Jonathan McCullough]

Why, oh why do people not see the light and use wooden planes? Why do they not wear culottes and hose, shave their heads and wear wigs? Maybe it's because they don't live in the eighteenth century, or make a living wearing culottes, hose, and wigs at an interpretive center. Maybe they just want to build something. Maybe some people are so far removed from the person they were when they were first learning to use a plane that they have no patience, time, or compassion for people who are just learning how to use any kind of plane or tell the difference between a jack and a block.

Why oh why oh why does not everyone see the inherent superiority of adjusting their planes with a hammer? Maybe when you have a plane hammer in your hand, every plane looks like a woodie. Or maybe for the same reason that our great forebears said, "to heck with this . . . I can dial in the blade perfectly, every time with this new Bailey adjuster." Or maybe because the cast iron planes are so durable we're still using the same ones. Or maybe because they're everywhere as a result of their being a working man's tool at a working man's price. Can any of that be said of todays woodies? Really? On a consistent basis?

And if serviceable woodies aren't as readily available as old (or new, cheap, readily available, and more tolerably consistent than some warped, doggerel splinter you might chance across on ebay!) cast iron bench planes, and your first advice to an aspiring woodworker is "firft, you muft perchance cut a hardwood tree down and rive with a froe into suitable pieces . . . ." forgive me if I find that risible. I mean really. If anyone thinks that's a better mousetrap, go build it. At a working man's price. If it's really better, they'll buy it.

Yes, there's an overemphasis on sub-thou everything when it comes to planes, which is equally ridiculous considering they're used to work a material that can, and does, change dimension from daily changes in temperature and humidity. Taken to the extreme, using a micrometer or feeler gauge to measure the tolerances on a hand plane is a bit like using a micrometer or feeler gauge on a Jell-O mold. You don't get compliments on the mold, or the hand plane. You get compliments on the tacky potluck Jell-O mold salad. Or the piece of furniture you made.

But making that furniture? Hard enough. Making it exclusively with wooden planes and period tools that are hard to find, source, and are a pastime to maintain just by themselves? Needlessly difficult for the average person.

[David Weaver]

I personally find it more difficult to make furniture with machines than with planes, chisels, etc.

If you can mark it, you can usually get to the mark pretty easily with hand tools - intuitively.

One clarification from above - the sub thou everything on planes has nothing to do with creating sub thou accuracy in the finished piece - it has to do with controlled removal when it warrants it.

sub thou shavings usually aren't needed to complete a piece, though.

However, buy a plane that is 5 thousandths hollow in the length, and you'll quickly realize why all of this sub thou talk. The ability to go from one plane to the next without having to get material "flat to that plane" is nice when you're only working with hand tools.

Wooden planes are nice to use. They are not as cheap in orderly condition as metal planes right now, though, and require more attention to fit and finish, and the lack of mass makes them not so great on very hard woods that don't tolerate planing that well. There's the argument that you can always find dried out old planes for $15, and I see them all the time, but there aren't that many - especially long planes - that are crack free and ready to go - and at the same time, not very expensive. I consider an old try plane that's $100+ to be expensive.

Any attempt to find a good dry quartersawn billet of beech or maple to make a new body will also teach you about expensive, too.

[David Keller NC]

Why, oh why do people not see the light and use wooden planes? Why do they not wear culottes and hose, shave their heads and wear wigs? Maybe it's because they don't live in the eighteenth century, or make a living wearing culottes, hose, and wigs at an interpretive center. Maybe they just want to build something.

This is part of the issue that Adam is tangentially referring to in his blog post (and has elaborated on directly in some of the forums). That is, simply because something is old doesn't mean it's outdated, old-fashioned or inefficient. In particular, there are several circumstances in a hobbyist shop where a wooden plane is the best choice of tools to use, and that includes comparing its use to power machinery.


But making that furniture? Hard enough. Making it exclusively with wooden planes and period tools that are hard to find, source, and are a pastime to maintain just by themselves? Needlessly difficult for the average person.

One of the things we all struggle with in the pursuit of any skill is recognizing that learning to do something is worthwhile simply because it's difficult - and no other reason. However, using wooden planes doesn't fall into this category. It's considerably more difficult to learn to cut dovetails by hand effectively and efficiently than it is to learn to hone the iron, set the depth and fix the wedge on a wooden plane.

[harry strasil]

I can't give you the Formula for SUCCESS, but I can give you the Formula for FAILURE, try to PLEASE all the people ALL the time. (Swope)

Each to his own way of working, what is easy for one person may not be easy for another.

We all have our own ways and methods of working. We should feel lucky that we have the option of using what ever we Like, Can Afford and works the best for our individual needs.

Stock prep is on of the most time consuming and sometimes trying and too others boring aspects of our woodworking hobbies or professions. Old timers had no choice in the matter as do we modern woodworkers.

Whether you prefer to work with hand tools or power tools or are limited in your ways of working with wood by time, patience, health constraints etc.

Just be Glad that in this point in the evolution of your woodworking abilities, that you have the choices of using what makes you happy at your hobby or proffession.

Choice being the important word.

[Steve Branam]

Steve, I'm not Adam, but I think there is one important thing to note about the radius method of determining camber. It is largely dependant on the width of the iron and the bed angle of the plane. A 1½" iron with an 8" radius camber will have a vastly different effective camber than a 2½" iron with an 8" radius camber, at the same bed angle.

Now there you go, throwing a 3rd dimension into it! But yes, you are quite right, I oversimplified. So much for the analytical method :rolleyes:. The empirical method you describe is much more practical. Like many things in hand-tool work, lay the measuring devices aside, put the pieces together and cut to fit.


The reason I ask is I'm in the process of doing this to a couple of wooden beaters, so I'm just looking for a practical approach to achieve the desired results. Adam has set the expectations for what can be accomplished.


Regarding comments about plans for hand-tool builds and how most hand-tool articles are just about the tools themselves, one thing I look for in project books is well-documented construction using fundamental techniques (and yes, it's typically shown done by machine). Then I can adapt that to hand tools. If the design calls for a dado, then I'll do a hand-made dado. And I'll document my version of the build on my blog. Enough people do that kind of thing and we'll have accumulated a nice library of hand-tool build projects.


For example, one book I really like is Glen Huey's "Building 18th Century American Furniture". The projects are well-documented, nice-looking reproductions (I can't comment on historical accuracy). Some of them are quite challenging, and I'm not yet ready for most of them, but they can all be followed without ever firing up a machine. My goal is to build several of these projects with hand tools, like Adam's standing desk project, and more proficiency will come with time. Why do it that way? Because I can!

[Adam Cherubini]

Why, oh why do people not see the light and use wooden planes? Why do they not wear culottes and hose, shave their heads and wear wigs?

"firft, you muft perchance cut a hardwood tree down and rive with a froe into suitable pieces . . . ." forgive me if I find that risible. I mean really. If anyone thinks that's a better mousetrap, go build it. At a working man's price. If it's really better, they'll buy it.


Can I just say, I love posts like yours, Jonathan. I had one guy ask me if I went to an 18th century dentist. Another suggested I have some of my "bad blood" let out. A third suggested I get to a conference in a "dog cart". I'm not exactly sure what a "dog cart" is, but I love the imagery. Your post has such great vocbulary, and I loved the long S part.

I get your point too. Some of what I do is pretty esoteric. I think the esoteric stuff is interesting. Sometimes I try to work without paper towels for example. I try to reuse or wash oilly rags (which really isn't smart). I've worked by candle light (WHY?). I get that this turns some folks off.

But in my opinion, this isn't that. In a room full of expensive planes, my crappy ebay woodies routinely outperform the others. People who use them really like them. They leave a great surface as Mike says and are fun and easy to use. Just the weight and slippery soles alone make for a different and enjoyable planing experience.

Putting the woodie smoother versus infill aside, the advantage of a light weight slippery soled, cambered iron jack plane becomes really obvious in a couple of passes. It's like the difference between good coffee and instant. It doesn't really matter how one's tastes are different, you're going to enjoy the good coffee more. (if you get my drift).

It may be like a sports car and a windy road. You may need to put the two together to really get the full experience.

It's been fun reading your comments guys. I've had a tough day and you brought me home.

Adam

[Steve Dallas]

For all of the collective thinking we've done on this subject, the magazine science projects, the endless forum discussions, it seems to me we're little better off for it. When I encounter woodworkers, they tend not to have planes that work well in my opinion. They fiddle with brass knobs and struggle to produce a shaving (which is always teh exactly width of the iron).

I think we've done ourselves no favors discussing the merits of chip breakers and bed angles. To work effectively by hand, you need at least one plane that can quickly remove wood. And you need a bench and a technique that always you to do that. Maybe we need to think about planes from the work we need them to do instead of analyzing their designs.

Don't mean to be a curmudgeon. I'm asking this question sincerely. (The question is, have we focused our super powers, and we do have super powers, on teh right things for the past 10 years). Seems to me we would have been better off to take a non-innovative approach, simply copy old tools accurately and focus on the work.

Adam

It's precisely the "nothing to fiddle" with aspect of woodies that turns most people off. Most people just want to fiddle and futz. Witness the starter of this thread "the iron and capiron are in Evaporust as we speak." How about knocking off the rust from the business end of the cutter and where it mates with the cap iron with a little sandpaper and WD40 and just giving the bleedin' thing a go? Whatcha wanna bet the next 'move' will be planing and truing the sole, making a new wedge, yada, yada, yada, then honing the cutter to atom splitting specs, puttying the mouth and filling the plane with oil, doing a type study or historical research on the manufacturer, and on and on. Well, I guess my original assertion is all wrong - you can endlessly futz and mess with even a simple wooden plane. Maybe said plane takes a shaving or two sometime around Christmas. Even the choir needs preaching to sometime I guess.

Rant over. I appreciate what you're saying because you're right. Ain't no fun tilting at windmills, is it?

[Steve Branam]

I was all set to try out some woodies I've been accumulating recently. I got one coffin smoother going, along with a really ugly long jointer, only to find the jack iron had been sharpened almost down to the cap iron slot. So no length left on it to camber. Argh! Hopefully I can pick up some nice irons and woodies this weekend at Brimfield.

However, I did readjust my transitional jack for a .060" shaving. I was able to swap out the lever cap with another one that fit a bit better. I tried it on some leftover SYP from my workbench.

Holy crap :eek:! In thirty seconds I had taken an 18" length of 1x6 down by an eighth, with only slight tearout. Now that's stock removal! I'll have to try this on some oak, see how that edge stands up. I expect to have to retract the iron a bit, but we'll see.

And the nice thing about having perchance cut down a hardwood tree and rive with a froe into suitable pieces is that the two or three years you let it season allow time to develop your skillf with the planef! ;)

The oak logs I split with wedges and sledges and then rived with a froe have been stacked in my yard for 4 yearf now. Hopefully they haven't turned into firewood.

A very brief video of the splitting of some of them is about halfway down this blog page: http://www.closegrain.com/2010/05/down-garden-path.html.

[Steve Branam]

I've posted some initial results of taking Adam's challenge at closegrain.com/2010/05/taking-adam-cherubinis-challenge.html. I'll have more in a few days, including some videos.

[Pinwu Xu]

Yup, they worked for generations before us, the design was worked out by Woodworkers, the good engineers just copied the user made tools.

Some Humor: or a can of worms: some will not agree with, from an olde man who uses olde tools.LOL

Lap=where the shop cat sets while you are setting down fiddling(playing) with your new found toy

Let the Ranting and Raving begin!

Cannot agree more about the lapping, especially when someone wants
to lap a #5.

Regards.

Pinwu

[David Weaver]

What a goofy bunch of chest beating this thread has turned into.

It doesn't make any difference what type of plane people use. If someone prepares wood more slowly with metal planes, it's probably because it's not set up the same way as a wooden plane.

The only difference I see is stiction, but it certainly isn't hard to stripe paraffin on the sole of a plane.

I wonder when the last time was that someone who was seriously working wood was slowed down by an adjuster on their plane. Never? What, do they go on vacation sometimes?

I'm constantly amazed at the want for people who are using hand tools not only to claim they're better than power tool users for various reasons, but to go on constantly about how their methods of hand tool woodworking are better than someone else's.

[Steve Dallas]

What a goofy bunch of chest beating this thread has turned into.

It doesn't make any difference what type of plane people use. If someone prepares wood more slowly with metal planes, it's probably because it's not set up the same way as a wooden plane.

The only difference I see is stiction, but it certainly isn't hard to stripe paraffin on the sole of a plane.

I wonder when the last time was that someone who was seriously working wood was slowed down by an adjuster on their plane. Never? What, do they go on vacation sometimes?

I'm constantly amazed at the want for people who are using hand tools not only to claim they're better than power tool users for various reasons, but to go on constantly about how their methods of hand tool woodworking are better than someone else's.

Well David, that is sort of the nature of these forums. I'm OK, You're OK would make for pretty boring reading and a very short lived forum, generally. People do seem to have genuine misconceptions about what it takes to work wood. Frankly, I believe history itself has answered that question quite smartly inasmuch as antiques with values in the high six to low seven figure were made with a kit that would fit in a chest not a whole lot larger than a footlocker. One's shop doesn't have to drip with accoutrement in order to build fine furniture. And accoutrement and big, shiny machines (or hand planes for that matter) obviously don't make up for lack of talent.

If there's anything I've learned from these forums it is that people bring a whole lot of baggage to the party other than the simple desire to make beautiful things out of wood. Why, some people hardly do any woodworking at all relative to the investment they've made in tools and shop. Whatever, right?

[harry strasil]

There is an old Blacksmith saying, "The Blacksmith makes the tools, The tools don't make the Blacksmith!"

[David Weaver]

If there's anything I've learned from these forums it is that people bring a whole lot of baggage to the party other than the simple desire to make beautiful things out of wood.

Right, and this is the thing that baffles me. Between the people offended by cheap tools and the people who are offended by the people who are offended by cheap tools, I just don't get where the peeing contest starts about who can work wood better.

I admit to being a hoarder. I have some of every type (well, if every is covered by transitionals, woodies, metal planes, new expensive metal planes and japanese planes) except a full set of infills, enough of every type to prepare rough stock. When they are set up, I don't know that there is any difference in how long it takes to prepare wood with any of them.

I certainly would never make the comment to someone using some other type that I could outwork them based on what type of planes they were using, or that I would be a better woodworker if I used one of the less expensive types (the cheapest at the time I bought them being transitionals, but now probably just metal bailey style planes - I would think you could put together jack, jointer, smoother for $100 if you were patient.) The idea that I wouldn't be able to work wood efficiently and effectively with properly prepared and set up metal planes "with lots more parts" is as goofy as the idea that I couldn't do it with wooden planes "without parts". Anyone who really spent a lot of time "fiddling with an adjuster" would be just so green enough that they would also spend a lot of time fidgeting with a wedge, iron and hammer.

The plane type really makes no difference if the user is intent on setting them up properly and doing work. I can't think of any out there that really require a lot of work and tinkering to use.

[Steve Dallas]

Right, and this is the thing that baffles me. Between the people offended by cheap tools and the people who are offended by the people who are offended by cheap tools, I just don't get where the peeing contest starts about who can work wood better.

I admit to being a hoarder. I have some of every type (well, if every is covered by transitionals, woodies, metal planes, new expensive metal planes and japanese planes) except a full set of infills, enough of every type to prepare rough stock. When they are set up, I don't know that there is any difference in how long it takes to prepare wood with any of them.

I certainly would never make the comment to someone using some other type that I could outwork them based on what type of planes they were using, or that I would be a better woodworker if I used one of the less expensive types (the cheapest at the time I bought them being transitionals, but now probably just metal bailey style planes - I would think you could put together jack, jointer, smoother for $100 if you were patient.) The idea that I wouldn't be able to work wood efficiently and effectively with properly prepared and set up metal planes "with lots more parts" is as goofy as the idea that I couldn't do it with wooden planes "without parts". Anyone who really spent a lot of time "fiddling with an adjuster" would be just so green enough that they would also spend a lot of time fidgeting with a wedge, iron and hammer.

The plane type really makes no difference if the user is intent on setting them up properly and doing work. I can't think of any out there that really require a lot of work and tinkering to use.

I agree. I have less invested in my set of bench planes than one new plane from a decent maker would cost. Metal planes work, for sure. I prefer wood planes, I think they work "better" but better is somewhat subjective I guess.

[David Weaver]

I agree. I have less invested in my set of bench planes than one new plane from a decent maker would cost. Metal planes work, for sure. I prefer wood planes, I think they work "better" but better is somewhat subjective I guess.

Having used them all, and having all of them, I guess, I'd say that with wax around, I don't have any preference on softwoods and medium hardwoods - it's all the same. On woods as hard as hard maple or harder, I like a plane with more mass - my old woodies make thicknessing hard maple a chore. Most people don't do that. I don't do it often, either.

I haven't tried an old woody to thickness an ebony board.

It's nice to have them all. Someday maybe I'll have a preference. so far, I don't.

[Steve Dallas]

Having used them all, and having all of them, I guess, I'd say that with wax around, I don't have any preference on softwoods and medium hardwoods - it's all the same. On woods as hard as hard maple or harder, I like a plane with more mass - my old woodies make thicknessing hard maple a chore. Most people don't do that. I don't do it often, either.

I haven't tried an old woody to thickness an ebony board.

It's nice to have them all. Someday maybe I'll have a preference. so far, I don't.

Of course the old timers often would have thicknessed hard maple. And I'm sure it was a chore. If you find yourself routinely needing to thickness ebony, by the board, I'd go electric. I also want the name of your supplier. And hell, your investment adviser too.

[David Weaver]

Of course the old timers often would have thicknessed hard maple. And I'm sure it was a chore. If you find yourself routinely needing to thickness ebony, by the board, I'd go electric. I also want the name of your supplier. And hell, your investment adviser too.

I thickness macassar ebony boards about 3 or 4 times a year.

Rockler up the street had macassar ebony boards for $10 a bd foot a couple of years ago, over an inch thickness. I pretty much bought two every time I went in and nobody else was buying them. Pretty much any time I need a dark hard wood for anything, it comes from those.

When they run out, I guess I'll be thicknessing ebony less.

A "board" being something along the lines of taking a quarter inch off of something 5 feet long and 6" wide.

I will use a muji to smooth it, but I have no interest in using a 2 1/2" ironed wooden fore plane or a 2 1/4" woody jack to thickness it. If someone else has done that regularly, I'd love to hear their opinion.

I use a HSS ironed jack or a bedrock jack with an a2 iron, joint it with an LN and then smooth it either with an infill or an ebony muji smoother.

I find hard maple to be undesirable to work with beech planes, too, just because it's harder to work and it's common. At least when you thickness ebony, you have .....ebony when you're done. It's worth the effort.

I do have a thickness planer - haven't used it in two years. If I have to take a lot of thickness off a board, I joint it and then resaw it.

[Steve Dallas]

I thickness macassar ebony boards about 3 or 4 times a year.

Rockler up the street had macassar ebony boards for $10 a bd foot a couple of years ago, over an inch thickness. I pretty much bought two every time I went in and nobody else was buying them. Pretty much any time I need a dark hard wood for anything, it comes from those.

When they run out, I guess I'll be thicknessing ebony less.

A "board" being something along the lines of taking a quarter inch off of something 5 feet long and 6" wide.

I will use a muji to smooth it, but I have no interest in using a 2 1/2" ironed wooden fore plane or a 2 1/4" woody jack to thickness it. If someone else has done that regularly, I'd love to hear their opinion.

I use a HSS ironed jack or a bedrock jack with an a2 iron, joint it with an LN and then smooth it either with an infill or an ebony muji smoother.

I find hard maple to be undesirable to work with beech planes, too, just because it's harder to work and it's common. At least when you thickness ebony, you have .....ebony when you're done. It's worth the effort.

I do have a thickness planer - haven't used it in two years. If I have to take a lot of thickness off a board, I joint it and then resaw it.

I've often "smoothed" boards with a 26" Ohio Tool Co. wooden jointer. It has plenty of mass. Smoothing doesn't absolutely have to be done at all times and in all places with a short(er) plane. I think this a point well worth noting as sometimes we needlessly let mere nomenclature put us in a box. If I'm jointing a face and all is going well I'm sanguine enough (some might call it lazy) to accept the matter at face value and be cheerful about it. But, as I've mentioned before my armament is rather limited, a circumstance I find liberating as I tend not to look gift horses, in form of cooperative stock, in the mouth. Ultimately, I make do.

[Christian Castillo]

I started a thread a few days ago called Infill plane performance. My question was regarding how some infill enthusiasts profess to infills being the ultimate plane and everyone pretty much came to the conclusion that a plane is a function of the skill of the user, and the characteristics of a high performing plane (appropriate mouth size, thick blade, tight and proper fit to the bed, optimal blade bevel angle and bed angle, flat sole etc...) set up to their best. Given that the aforementioned characteristics being equal, all plane styles perform identical.

[bridger berdel]

to remove stock in a hurry, I want a light weight plane, with a wide open mouth and a thick, heavily cambered iron (and no, not a scrub plane either; I don't know what to do with those short little things).



use it in conjunction with a straight edge. depending how twisted/cupped/bowed your board is, you'll probably only need it for a few swipes. they move the wood *really* fast.

[Steve Branam]

There may be a bit of chest-beating going on, but I prefer to look at it as a call to see past our preconceptions about what can be achieved by these tools. And sometimes it takes a little kick in the seat of the pants to stop obsessing over the latest and shiniest (OK, if I could afford a full suite of LNs I would get them!) and try to do the work with the grungiest, humblest tools. Even with hand tools we can get carried away by the specsmanship.

It's satisfying to get the old beaters to work. It gives me the confidence that I'm really developing the skills.

[David Weaver]

I started a thread a few days ago called Infill plane performance. My question was regarding how some infill enthusiasts profess to infills being the ultimate plane and everyone pretty much came to the conclusion that a plane is a function of the skill of the user, and the characteristics of a high performing plane (appropriate mouth size, thick blade, tight and proper fit to the bed, optimal blade bevel angle and bed angle, flat sole etc...) set up to their best. Given that the aforementioned characteristics being equal, all plane styles perform identical.

That is a bit far on the generalizing, I'd say. There are still differing characteristics between the types. An infill properly set up is going to be more comfortable to smooth hardwoods (not cherry, the harder hardwoods). You just don't get many well balanced 2" wide 6 pound wooden smoothers with a 3 or 4 thousandth mouth. The difference really shows when you get into the really hard woods and add figure or knots. Knots are no big deal with an infill plane, same with a heavy LN smoother, like a 4 1/2. If it's properly set up, a knot should hardly be felt.

I always feel the knots with a wooden smoother.

I do have 4 woodies on the way right now, so I'm not an infill elitist, and I've never actually used an infill that I didn't make (they're too expensive for my blood, generally, and especially too expensive for my wife's taste - it would start a spending war). She doesn't get too mad about the $10+$10 shipping woodies, though, and they can still be found on peebay with some risk.

I really like woodies, but I don't like them on some hard maple and I don't like them on knots. I like heavier tools with less chippy blades on those. I've never even tried my beech woodies on cocobolo, but I have done OK on it with mujingfang planes, and with infills, it's "just another wood", though it does require frequent sharpening.

I think the only thing that a lot of new users may be turned off by with woodies is that they won't solve the wedge right away. The bed and wedge fit on a woody is the key, and sometimes you get wedges missing a "finger" or whatever you'd call the points, and others they've shrunk enough that they don't want to engage the body of the plane all the way down the blade. If not even that, you still need to fit them to the iron on a very old plane.

The other thing is that generally I have to remove the pits from the edge on about ...maybe half or 2/3rds of the woody irons I get? If I see uniform rust and no huge flakes, I'll still get the iron and get it to a workable point, anyway - they're cheap, I can make the effort. It took me a lot of lapping pits out by fingers before I was smart enough to make a blade holder and use loose diamonds. A newbie using a stone or sandpaper will be cursing up a storm until they make a blade holder to clean up the iron.

I think, and everyone has their differences, but I think that I'll be done with bench planes soon, other than a couple that were given as gifts and two LN jointers. I like wooden bottom planes better on softwoods, and infills better on hardwoods.

Before I got to all of this gluttony, I could still do most of the work with plain old bench planes, though. My millers falls total costs were $10 for a #4 (a good one), $10 for a #5 (another good one) and $39 for a very nice corrugated #6. Add $33 shipping to all of those and I really could have done almost all of my work with them, including jointing. Even with woodies, it's not going to be that easy to beat that, and I could prep wood right along with anyone with a woody using those three planes in terms of pace.

Infills and Lie Nielsens are expensive, but don't discount how good they are if you're going to work hardwoods a lot. If you do that, you'll likely grow to appreciate just how good they are as time goes on. Doesn't mean you "need" them, but in general, they are made a lot better, especially when what you're working on gets tougher.

[Bob Smalser]

Within some limits, whether the plane works well with a wide mouth is more a function of the wood being planed than the plane. What you can get away with on crisp, tight-ringed, qsawn fir or spruce will be your undoing on gummy, fast-grown, flatsawn fir or ash.

And some years ago I published a method to resole woodies using a power jointer that's easy, fast and more effective that inletting graving pieces and the like:

Rehabbing Woodies
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=8351

And if you need a special plane....then use the same methods to convert a 10-dollar woodie rather than spend heavily on a new iron.

Making Spar Planes
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=11233

Why spend $175 on a plane when a $10-20 woodie can be made to work just as well?

But my measure of whether budding woodworkers really understand plane tuneup remains the humble block plane. If you experience a quantum improvement in performance using a new Lie Nielsen or Veritas block plane over, say, a common Stanley 60 1/2 or 65 you fettled, then we can still help you.

Block Plane Selection and Rehabilitation
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=60970

[Steve Branam]

I've added another blog page about this with three short videos demonstrating the wooden planes in use for edge jointing oak and removing 1/8" of thickness of SYP and oak. Just bear in mind I'm a beginner with these, so my intent is to show that a beginner can learn to achieve good results with them quickly. Haven't tried them on any dense tropical woods.

[Steve Dallas]

I've added another blog page about this with three short videos demonstrating the wooden planes in use for edge jointing oak and removing 1/8" of thickness of SYP and oak. Just bear in mind I'm a beginner with these, so my intent is to show that a beginner can learn to achieve good results with them quickly. Haven't tried them on any dense tropical woods.

Anybody looking for confirmation that wood planes actually work should consider visiting a museum featuring 18th century American antiques.

Not to minimize your accomplishments, but I think fourteen year old shop help would have been edge jointing and thickness planing to pretty decent effect by the end of the second week of their apprenticeship, if not sooner. But they were learning from masters, too. And planing a whole lot of stock with deadlines needing to be met.

[Steve Branam]

Anybody looking for confirmation that wood planes actually work should consider visiting a museum featuring 18th century American antiques.

Not to minimize your accomplishments, but I think fourteen year old shop help would have been edge jointing and thickness planing to pretty decent effect by the end of the second week of their apprenticeship, if not sooner. But they were learning from masters, too. And planing a whole lot of stock with deadlines needing to be met.

:D No worries! Consider me the equivalent of a 14-year old apprentice. In his second week! But that's pretty much my point, it's a skill that can be learned without all that much difficulty, with results comparable to new tools. It's one of those things where you say, "Hey, look at that! I can do it!"