Making wooden planes & adjusting Kanna

[Mike Holbrook]

I was successful in talking Steve Knight into making a few plane kits for me.

I am trying to make sure I have the tools for the job. I have been looking at Lie-Nielsen's Planemaker's Floats. I have no idea how good these tools are at the jobs the descriptions enumerate vs other options. I am sure I will be trying to perfect plane mouths and wedge mortises. I can certainly see how these devices could make this work easier and more precise.

I was hoping to get some input from those experienced in doing this work regarding tools and techniques.

I know those who use Japanese Kanna do some very fine adjustments to the bottoms and wedge areas for these planes although I am not sure how? I am hoping the floats might help with this sort of plane adjustment as well.

[Wilbur Pan]

I have a write up on how to set up a Japanese plane here (http://giantcypress.net/tagged/Japanese%20plane%20setup). Floats will work. There are a number of other options as well.

The thing is not to be too afraid of this process. If you can fit a mortise and tenon joint, you can set up a Japanese plane. The whole process can be done in an hour, easily, and I've done it in less than 30 minutes.

[Mike Holbrook]

Very interesting Wilbur. I am reading & processing that very helpful information.

One concern of some of us aging gentlemen who may have trouble focusing on thin blades and tiny wood details. Can this work be done in such a way that very acute close up vision is not required?

[Wilbur Pan]

It should be pretty easy, even if you have issues with your vision. By using some sort of oil (I like camellia oil) to coat the blade before tapping it in to see how well it fits, it will highlight the high spots on the bed of the body of the plane pretty well. It's going to be oil soaking into endgrain, so you don't need super good vision to pick out the high spots. Hopefully the pictures in my articles show that well. Paring down those areas isn't a super precision process either. I usually use a file to file away the oil spot, plus about 1/16-1/8" margin around the oil spot. You don't need 20/20 vision for this, either.

The only other area are tweaking the side mortises to increase lateral adjustability, if needed. But I've found that the oil also highlights where you need to pare away pretty nicely. And if you wind up with a little more lateral adjustment than you need, that's not the end of the world.

[Jim Belair]

I was able to set up my kanna with files and chisels as Wilbur outlines on his website. Floats are not required. I've since ground an old 3/8 inch chisel flat across the blade so it can be used as a small long handled scraper.

Jim B

[george wilson]

Any comment on your advice for setting up a Japanese long plane with a fully hollow sole in Pop. Woodworking,Wilbur? It isn't hard to see that it would just be a concave compass plane if so set up. What am I missing here?

[Wilbur Pan]

Any comment on your advice for setting up a Japanese long plane with a fully hollow sole in Pop. Woodworking,Wilbur? It isn't hard to see that it would just be a concave compass plane if so set up. What am I missing here?

Glad to hear that you enjoyed the article, George.

A Japanese jointer plane is about 16" long, and the hollow is on the order of 1/128-1/64" deep. If a true compass plane was set up with the dimensions of a Japanese jointer plane, and you work through the math for calculating a circle knowing the chord length and segment height, such a plane could be used for planing a concave surface -- if you wanted an arc with a radius 260 feet long. The fact that the blade is set so that the edge is in line with the front and rear touch points mitigates even this little bit of an arc. Good technique also helps a lot. Just as you would do with western planes, if I am truing an edge, I'll take passes in the middle of the board to create a slight hollow, then take full length passes until the hollow is planed away.

I have a more detailed explanation that I wrote up a few weeks ago here (http://giantcypress.net/post/3874908014/japanese-jointer-plane-sole-configuration). It's actually not my explanation. As I say in the write up, it's Toshio Odate's explanation.

[george wilson]

The blade would still bite off the front and rear edges of a board,producing a convex board. It doesn't matter who explains it. I prefer to plane flat boards. Good technique with a hollow plane will still produce a convex board.

Everyone here strives to lap their soles as FLAT AS POSSIBLE. Certainly not to make them hollow. This is extremely basic. A long plane should have at least 3 OR 4 POINTS OF CONTACT In front and rear,and in front and preferably behind the blade,no matter what its national origin is.

Re: Good technique; what are you supposed to do,lift the plane slightly at the start and finish of each cut?

In spite of all the "art and mystery" this just isn't rocket science. In American Woodworker,1994,it is said that Odate scrapes the planes' soles,leaving the front,back,and a place at the blade flat. In a past posting I made about your article, several users of Japanese planes responded that there re points of contact at the front,in front and behind the blade,and at the rear of the plane,which makes sense.

[Pam Niedermayer]

George, seems to me that until you try it, you might want to bow to Wilbur's, Odate's, and my experience, to say nothing of several hundred thousand Japanese (OK, I made up that number :)). I don't get convex boards, plain and simple. The explanation? Beats me, maybe good technique that requires one to put most pressure on what you'd call the toe, from behind the blade forward. There's simply nothing basic about Japanese planes; so what you do with western soles is irrelevant in this case. I thought we were over this.

Pam

[george wilson]

Pam,you,yourself,said there were contact points at the blade as well as at the front and rear of the sole. This was stated by you,and several others when I posted my question"Will someone explain to me how Japanese planes plane flat" (or words to that effect. I have just re read that thread.

You said that you don't relieve yours at all,but in the case of jointers,3 to 4 points of contact were left,including ones in front and behind the blade,and front and rear of the sole,which makes sense.

David Weaver,Greg Wease,Chris Vandiver,,and Chris Mahmood all stated that there were at least 3 points of contact. Frank Drew said there were 2,one at the front,and one at the blade.

The posting is now on page 10. So,I am not contradicting you,or anyone. I certainly would not challenge Odate. I just think his information has not been remembered correctly,and now an article has been written about it,which I think only serves to confuse beginners.

Go back and read what you said,please.

[Jon van der Linden]

I've always wondered how you would really quantify these often talked about "relieved surfaces." If it's merely something where it's concave enough to pass the test for a "flat" vs convex board then it's still flat terms of the measurements that can be made in woodworking. I.E. not visible, but wiggling a straight edge along the long axis will have it sticking at the high points and not in the middle.

I like the idea of the smoothing plane where the blade is the last thing to touch the surface. Burnishing from the trailing plane sole does change the appearance of the wood. Fortunately for me, the woods I use are mostly dense enough that it doesn't matter much. If I was using softer woods there's no doubt I'd at least try a high quality Japanese smoother.

I would like to throw out some information that Stephen Thomas (maker of the "loopy" infill smoothing plane has said about flatness. He has stated that his plane soles are flat to within about 50 millionths of an inch. Beyond the flatness, it's about surface bearing density. Since his planes are scraped, the surface produced is not even but has visible bearing points. He plans the density so that it is significantly denser right at the leading edge of the mouth than anywhere else on the plane.

Maybe a few of our Japanese plane experts can give us some more insight into the flat and hollow debate?

Regarding the OP, the only cutting tools you really need to make a Japanese style plane are a chisel and a flush cutting saw to cut the wedging slots in the plane cheeks. The saw needs to be small enough in height to operate through the mouth of the plane. For tuning the sole you can use either a scraper or the traditional sole tuning/scraping plane.

[Chris Fournier]

I know that this will start to polarize the thread and I don't want this to appear like I'm picking a fight but I have to take a position based on what I know about tools. I don't think that George's question has been answered in either theoretical or practical terms. I do detect the presence of bafflegab.

When it comes to cutting with a fixtured cutting edge it has been accepted for millenia that the tool edge must be robustly supported as close to the cutting interface as possible for best results.

In the case of this kanna at 16" long and only contacting the board at the front and back I can say this with great certainty. One: no amount of "technique" is gonna allow the woodworker to fight the cutting edges force which is pulling it into the planed board. Pressure on the toe or heel or no, that plane is sucking itself into the board, we can't hold it back. Two, the wooden body of the plane is likely not fairing much better either. I would bet a weeks pay that an unsupported cutting edge in the plane in question as proposed is distorting the plane body while in the cut.

Let's not make this whole "wooden plane is not simple, it's complicated" arguement, it's specious. I've spent a great deal of my time trying to understand the science behind cutting so that I can sharpen, design and make my own cutters for wood, metal and plastic. Our wood planes are dirt simple, if you want complicated lets start by talking about the lowly twist drill bits as a warm up!

I look forward to logical and robust engineering replies to the points that George has brought up.

[Jon van der Linden]

Pam, it would be great if you could give some more detail to quantify the amount of convex relief in these planes? I'm sure that it varies with the purpose of the plane.

One other point regarding the convex debate is that the trailing surface on a Japanese plane is "always" small in relation to the leading part. In fact it's small enough that Western techniques would inevitably produce an uneven surface with it. Maybe some explanation of Japanese technique and its actual effect on producing a flat surface is in order.

The "what you do" "is irrelevant" is not really helpful to any discussion beyond saying that you don't understand it yourself. I'm sure that with some effort you'd be able to come up with a decent explanation.

[Chris Fournier]

You raise some very good points John!

Flatness is very measurable. I imagine that Stephen Thomas is using a time honoured scraping technique that has been employed by tool makers for a long time. Burnishing has everything to do with "surface bearing density" for a given pressure. If Stephen scrapes his planes as you detail, then they would burnish most away from the leading edge of the mouth - same pressure, less bearing surface equals more PSI!

[george wilson]

I think that Odate's information was not understood correctly. I have googled around,and others say different about the points of contact. Also,It has already occurred to me that the plane's body might get distorted in a 2 point configuration. Agreed: Technique,which I have plenty of,isn't going to make a hollow plane cut flat. When that iron is embedded in the wood,it's embedded.

Unless Pam wants to recant what she previously wrote,I am not arguing with her,or the several other guys who previously replied,or even Odate himself,based on what I have found that he said.

Bafflegab???? That must be some kind of obscene Canadian double talk!!!:)

[Jon van der Linden]

Chris, It's important to keep in mind that Stephen Thomas's plane has a single purpose, which is a smoothing plane producing no tear out regardless of grain. The tightness of the mouth (which is adjustable on his plane) and the bearing density, create a plane that gives really good results for its purpose, and is repeatable from plane to plane (i.e. he can make his planes identically).

He's also concerned with wear and this is another reason that the mouth has the greatest density. He's even thought of hardening it to keep it from wearing out, but I don't think he's actually doing that at this point.

From what I've read about Japanese planes, the mouth opening is generally less of a concern than in the West, at least in terms of how open it is. Of course there is very little accurate info on Western planes and even less on Japanese, especially since I think what most of us are interested in is learning about how they work and are used at the highest level... and with denser woods! The knowledge is out there, it's just not being communicated.

[george wilson]

With a 5/8" thick sole,unless he's planing titanium,I doubt the mouth would wear any time soon.

[Chris Fournier]

Bafflegab???? That must be some kind of obscene Canadian double talk!!!:)

Next to the middle finger, or drivers salute I consider bafflegab to be the most commonly understood and praciticed language on the planet.

[george wilson]

Well,I must admit that it seems,especially in woodworking circles by some people,a very common tongue.

I am not a user of Japanese tools,but I do have a lifetime of woodworking and machining experience behind me,plus a good understanding of mechanics. I am very sure that Odate's technique on these planes was not understood. When one goes to writing articles,it is a big responsibility that beginners are not mislead,both for the writer and the editor. Even if the Japanese have 600 names for the parts of their plane (which I have read),this is not complicated if you have a basic grasp of mechanics.

This reminds me of the time I helped a friend take the chassis out of his Fender Princeton amplifier. There was a very simple circuit board and a few tubes. He exclaimed loudly,and with great surprise
" Well,what about all the art and mystery ?"

[Wilbur Pan]

When it comes to cutting with a fixtured cutting edge it has been accepted for millenia that the tool edge must be robustly supported as close to the cutting interface as possible for best results.

In the case of this kanna at 16" long and only contacting the board at the front and back I can say this with great certainty. One: no amount of "technique" is gonna allow the woodworker to fight the cutting edges force which is pulling it into the planed board. Pressure on the toe or heel or no, that plane is sucking itself into the board, we can't hold it back. Two, the wooden body of the plane is likely not fairing much better either. I would bet a weeks pay that an unsupported cutting edge in the plane in question as proposed is distorting the plane body while in the cut.
Here are a couple of features of a Japanese plane that I think help with the unsupported blade/sucking in phenomenon, if I understand you correctly.

First, the amount of unsupported blade in a Japanese plane is on the order of what you might find in a western plane in terms of how much that blade is protruding from the body of the plane, so there's nothing inherent about a Japanese plane that makes this issue worse.

Second, the blade of a Japanese plane is quite a bit thicker than that of a western plane, which should help with this issue.

Third, the blade of a Japanese plane is tapered along its length, with the back of the blade being thicker than the cutting edge. The plane blades that I have are about 7-8mm at the back, and 5-6 mm just before the bevel of the blade. This blade sits in wedge-shaped side mortises, which should help a lot with the sucking-in phenomenon (again, if I understand you correctly) by resisting any unwanted advancement of the blade by the forces you describe.


Pam, it would be great if you could give some more detail to quantify the amount of convex relief in these planes? I'm sure that it varies with the purpose of the plane.

I'm not Pam, for for the most part the reliefs are on the order about 0.01" or less on my planes. Planes used for more roughing work would have deeper reliefs. Planes used for final finishing would have smaller reliefs. I've read of people going for reliefs of a few thousandths of an inch for smoothing planes.

[george wilson]

When I plane wood,I want it flat. When I plane edges,I want them flat,or if to be glued u,a bit concave,not convex.(I do know that a different plane is used for edges,but I still want those edges true.)

[Mike Holbrook]

It seems to me we might look for the common ground here instead of the differences. We might all agree that there is no "perfectly" flat surface. There will be lower and higher parts of any surface. Maybe the Japanese handle this especially relevant fact in the case of wood by removing enough of the central part of the plane bottom, in front and behind the mouth, to insure those areas make the least contact. I say the least contact because given the elasticity of wood it seems to me that pressure form the operator and the blade pulling into the wood...might cause parts of the relieved bottom to bounce off the work surface during work anyway, at least with the small tolerances we are talking about. The fact that the surface we are working is obviously not dead flat would also suggest that the surface being worked will be touching the relieved portions of the plane bottom during work to some extent.

Seems to me the question is not so much if the plane's bottom is contacting or not contacting the work's surface but how much each section of the plane bottom touches. Given the close tolerances we are talking about I imagine the species of wood, humidity, moisture in the wood, technique of the worker.....could all drastically alter how much each section of the plane touches the work surface even if there are relieved sections on the plane's bottom.

I guess I am questioning whether or not there is some definable relief dimension that would define how much contact there would be between any given plane bottom & any species of wood being worked. I just see too many variables in the equation.

[Pam Niedermayer]

George, I can't imagine that I would have said anything like what you said I said. Japanese smoothers have unflat soles. Other planes, such as jointers, don't. I never would have said anything contrary to those two statements because that's the way I think it is and have thought so for years and years.

When I relieve a sole, I don't measure the relief with micrometers. I simply lay a straight edge on edge along the sole (with blade mounted), hold it all up to a light, and look for a sliver. Period. That works for me.

More later, after I've read the PWW article.

Pam

[Derek Cohen]

OK, I have a question. I think that I may be rehashing George's question, which would be good since I do not recall his asking it this way (which may be the reason he is not being answered).

I consider the area forward of the mouth to be important for registering the plane on the workpiece.

Question: is this area scraped along its entire width, or is it only the centre of the sole?

If the entire width is lower than the mouth (not the blade), then there cannot be any registration that will ensure "flat" planing. On the other hand, if the centre of these areas is removed, then (like a Japanese blade), the outer boundary walls provide all the registration that is needed for the plane to be held at a constant angle.

Is this what you are referring to George?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ken Fitzgerald]

This thread could be closed and moved very shortly. The uncivil attitude of some of those posting here is not characteristic of SMC.

You can debate someone's statements without attacking them.

[Pam Niedermayer]

Entire width. Sorry, nice try. :)

Pam

[george wilson]

I am sorry for losing my temper on this thread. Chronic pain and medications sometimes work against me,and I will not post when I have certain medications in me.

[Mike Holbrook]

I am learning some interesting methods/techniques for using planes from this thread. Obviously there are some strong feelings about some of these techniques. I have no particular allegiance to any theories or techniques, probably due to my relative lack of experience. I enjoy hearing the different ideas and theories on these "popular" topics as they frequently seem to me to focus on the crux of some key issues. With a little patience I think we all stand to benefit from each others experience.

I still have questions here. For instance, It appears that Japanese Kanna are thinner/less tall than many "Western" wooden bodies. Is this difference another part of Kanna's particular design features, maybe again relating to how the plane blade relates to the wood? Could just a very slight amount of flex in blade-body interaction provide some benefit? Kinda like spices & cooking, just a little making a positive taste sensation where more might reverse the whole sensation to something negative?

[Dave Anderson NH]

Because of the current high emotions and problems with behavior, I am going to temporarily lock this thread for a few hours.