cap iron adjustments ( like in the japanese video ) wont let my LN blade protrude....

[John A. Callaway]

So I took my 5.5 and was going to see what I could figure out in reference to the recently found video of a cap iron's placement and how if affects ( prevents ) tear out in any direction.... I got the blade super close to the edge, almost to the point that a magnification was needed to make sure it didnt stick out over the edge of the blade .... trying to find that .2 millimeter... and I can get it adjusted very close to that point, but when I put the set up in the blade, and move the frog forward and back to find the right set up that works, the depth adjuster wont let it down far enough to clear the mouth of the plane... The round hole in the cap iron for the hold down screw causes the breaker to bottom out on the screw ..... So I dont think this is gonna work without altering the hole some, and then the tang that moves the blade forward and back will drop down to where it wont catch on the blade.... so I dunno ..... I am sure in a japanese style or Krenov style plane this will work okay.... and I didnt try it out in my old stanley number three.... since its got frog problems.... but I could give it a try and see ....

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/IMG_0261.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/IMG_0262.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/IMG_0264.jpg

I had it closer than this, but I encountered the above problem.... this was pushing the limits of the depth adjuster's travel and mouth opening....

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Interesting. That looks like a considerably smaller hole than the somewhat ovoid holes on all the chipbreakers I have.

I suppose you could just grind a bunch off the working end of your iron . . .

[James Taglienti]

Grinding the cutter wont do anything for you but you could file the chipbreaker hole.

[Chris Griggs]

Thats odd. I've had that problem, but only on old planes where someone had previously ground back the leading edge of the CB. I would send the pic to LN and ask what they say. They will be more than willing to advise you.

[bridger berdel]

you need a slightly longer cap iron.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Oops - Never mind, I get it.

[John A. Callaway]

It looks like I would need maybe another +/- a quarter inch of room in the chip breaker hole..... and that still wont solve the problem of the depth adjuster running out of travel... although, i guess if the chip breaker had more travel it would most likely eliminate that problem.....

I wouldnt really know what to ask LN..... that I am trying to get the tool to do something it really wasnt designed to do.... as far as a set up procedure goes.... I dont think they designed the tool to have the chip breaker so super close to the edge of the blade... so I dont think this is something I should call them over.... I am sure the would most likely send me a new chip breaker.... but it will most likely be set up the same way.....

I guess I will have to set out and just build me a krenov style plane.... perhaps a hock kit first, just to learn the process.

[David Weaver]

I would call them and ask them if they intend the chipbreaker to be able to make it all the way to the edge of the iron with the iron at full depth. If they don't, there is a design flaw (especially considering that the edge will take some wear when used properly and have to be polished from time to time). I haven't tried to fiddle with my lone remaining LN plane yet (#7) because I haven't used it since we started this playing with second irons.

But it is a design flaw straight away if you can't advance the chipbreaker all the way to the cut in use.

[James Taglienti]

How far is the chipbreaker from the edge usually? Its got to be within 1/16. They must have engineered more travel into the adjuster than that. Is your chipbreaker altered?

[Jim Koepke]

If possible, my first check would be to measure the distance from the bottom of the slot to the edge of the chip breaker and compare this with another chip breaker of the same size.

There is a chart of such measurements here on SMC, but it only covers Stanley chip breakers.

Maybe some one can supply the measurements from one of their chip breakers if you do not have another LN plane using the same sized blade.

jtk

[Zander Kale]

I'm curious how your experiments turn out - I just got done tuning 5 #3's (inspired by the same video) and the closest I could get the cap iron was 1/32" before clogging stopped things in their tracks (1/32" worked very well). A Bailey style cap iron seems pretty close to what the video shows, I'm curious how/if LN cap changes things.
Here is a photo of the wadding when the cap is too close to the edge along with a shaving when things are well adjusted:
http://zkprojectnotebook.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/wad.jpg?w=600
(Too big to attach)

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

From the Lie Nielsen site (http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=CB) about their chipbreakers, it sounds like the measurement from the chipbreaker edge to the bottom of the slot on a 2 3/8" blade (that's what your 5 1/2 has, right?) is supposed to be 3.820". Might be worth checking yours - I'd still contact LN regardless, but it could give you an idea if somehow you got a short one or if this is how things are supposed to be.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Zander - I haven't tried these super-close settings on my planes yet, but that shaving pattern looks suspiciously close to what I had on my smoothing blade before fettling the breaker a bit. Polishing the front edge and then honing a slight relief on the bottom, so as to be certain that the contact point was at the very leading edge of the breaker helped alleviate this. Maybe you've already done this and this is a different problem with a similar looking symptom, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

[Chris Griggs]

Zander - I haven't tried these super-close settings on my planes yet, but that shaving pattern looks suspiciously close to what I had on my smoothing blade before fettling the breaker a bit. Polishing the front edge and then honing a slight relief on the bottom, so as to be certain that the contact point was at the very leading edge of the breaker helped alleviate this. Maybe you've already done this and this is a different problem with a similar looking symptom, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

I agree. Looks like you do not have tight enough mating surfaces between the back of your blade and the CB. Stick a piece of medium-coarse sand paper down to a flat surface and work the CBs mating surface. Be sure that you hold the CB so the its upper portion (the part you are holding) sits below the surface on which the CB is being worked. This will create the relief angle that Josh is talking about and ensure the the leading edge of the CB is in full contact with the blade back. Once you establish the relief than you can polish that mating surface on your medium of choice.

Edit: Zander, here's a video that illustrates tuning a CB this pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV7XVrJdOR8

[David Weaver]

I'm curious how your experiments turn out - I just got done tuning 5 #3's (inspired by the same video) and the closest I could get the cap iron was 1/32" before clogging stopped things in their tracks (1/32" worked very well). A Bailey style cap iron seems pretty close to what the video shows, I'm curious how/if LN cap changes things.
Here is a photo of the wadding when the cap is too close to the edge along with a shaving when things are well adjusted:
http://zkprojectnotebook.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/wad.jpg?w=600
(Too big to attach)

What is that iron, is it a stock iron? If it's not, try the stock iron first to see if you have the same issues. If you don't have the same trouble with the stock iron then there's just not enough room between the front of the cap iron and the top side of the mouth front.

(if it does it with both irons, lap it flush, but a feed issue that comes from a jam up at the mouth ends up looking the same as a jam up that comes from a bad/not flush second iron fit.

[Charlie Stanford]

All of this stuff makes my head hurt.

[John A. Callaway]

How far is the chipbreaker from the edge usually? Its got to be within 1/16. They must have engineered more travel into the adjuster than that. Is your chipbreaker altered?

It's usually up a little farther , some where just under an 1/8" from the edge of the blade... I used to think I ran it down fairly tight to the blade edge, and it has never given me a problem.... until I saw this video, and tried to run it down even farther....

[John A. Callaway]

has anybody else got a four or five from LN they can see if they encounter the same problems....

[David Weaver]

I can check a 7 tonight - it'll have the same frog/iron/cap asssembly as your 5 1/2.

[Mike Allen1010]

has anybody else got a four or five from LN they can see if they encounter the same problems....

I have an LN #4 and #4 1/2 with 55 degree frog, and they both have plenty of travel in the blade adjustment mechanismfor this setup. I also have a LN 5 1/2and interestingly it seems like it would be right at the end of the adjuster travel with this kind of mouth set up.

You might want to try Moving the frog farther forward and see if you need less blade travel to achieve the same mouth opening.Just thinking about the geometry, it doesn't seem like this would make a difference, but I'm not nearly smart enough to know for sure -- I generally go with the "try it and see" approach.

I would be interested to know if you hear anything from Lee Nielsen about whether they intended the #5 to be set up this way.

Mike

[Tony Shea]

That is odd. I have been taught and have seen many video's that state the chipbreaker should be within at least 1/16" of the edge of the iron. I have 4 different LN planes that I practice this on, one of them being a #5. I typically set it closer to a 1/32" and have never even come close to maxing out the travel of the adjuster.

I do not have a LN 5.5 though so am not sure about this setup. It would seem that they would've designed the plane to be set up with this 1/16" or less and have no issues. Very odd.

[John A. Callaway]

If you move the frog forward to compensate, you close up the mouth too tight, and the blade cant come out far enough to do anything beyond bury itself into the sole of the plane inside the mouth....

This is why I want some else to see if they hit the same situation as me.... before I go and call them... Cause I dont think there is anything wrong with the tool, I think we are hoping to use a western plane set up as a japanese tool, and the tools are alike, but there is a difference in a japanese plane and it's setup compared to a bedrock/bailey style plane and it's set up....

And odds are, as I said before, unless I have a custom breaker made, the replacement will be the same as this with that 3.820" distance from edge to hole.

[Zander Kale]

I'm pretty sure I've got a good fit between the cap iron and blade (kinda hard to tell since things need to be assembled to check). It is light tight and a thou & half feeler gauge fed into the mouth doesn't get stuck.
Note that the old Stanley caps effectively have a tiny wall where the cap meets the blade (as in the video), I'm guessing that that, in some cases, the chip deflects into the back of the mouth and wads.

[Zander Kale]

Stock irons, stock everything (except a 1/8" blade on a Sargent, I was messing with five planes).
You are correct, the photo shows the result of not enough cap iron setback, the nice shaving shows the result of moving it up a bit.

[David Weaver]

Unless it was less than 3 thousandths or so, it shouldn't have caused a jam up like that unless the mouth was also too tight.

I think a lot of people are watching the videos and then compromising to a pretty wide band of iron before the chipbreaker, and at that point the chipbreaker is doing nothing to improve the cut quality. If it's bending the chip, you can feel a pretty significant difference in resistance to push with a 2 thousandth shaving thickness.

[David Weaver]

I checked my #7 last night (like I said I would) and it only just will protrude from the mouth with the second iron set tight and the iron projected absolutely all the way forward. This is problematic because with a little bit of wear on the second iron (which needs a flat on the front on mine, anyway), it won't adjust all the way down.

I think this is a design flaw that probably extends across at least a batch with that size frog and chipbreaker, and perhaps nobody noticed because they don't actually use the second iron to break chips.

In addition, several years ago, I remember someone (peter mcbride on the old tools list maybe) stating that the "improved" design of chipbreaker is actually no improvement at all vs. the stanley stock design. I didn't believe it at the time, but I'm inclined to agree now. That it's a neutral proposition at best, it certainly doesn't work better than the stanley design.

I don't know what I'm going to do with mine, while it still has the projection to adjust properly, I'll use it as such. if it takes on wear and won't adjust toward the edge properly, just lengthening the round slot won't work because the adjuster is out of travel. I may end up filing another one out of O1 stock, but it'd be a lot of work for what it is, and practical use (to not sink a lot of time) would probably dictate just tightening the mouth instead and leaving the cap iron back a bit.

It's disappointing, though, on what is otherwise a fine piece of gear, and as stable as the LN bench planes are, they are really fine pieces of gear that are a pleasure to use.

[Greg Wease]

For what it's worth, the blade/chip breaker I purchased from Lee Valley for use in a Bailey #7 has plenty of adjustment range with the breaker set to within a couple of thousandths of the edge. Rob got it right. Again.

David, I for one would be interested in hearing the reply from LN if you would take this issue to them. After all, you started all this with your video!

[Joel Goodman]

Question -- if the issue is that moving the frog forward would cause the mouth the be too tight why not open up the mouth a tad? Perhaps LN would be willing to do that if you don't want to attack your LN with a file?

[David Weaver]

I guess because it's a bandaid solution to the real issue, which is just where the hole in the chipbreaker is in relation to distance from the front edge. Else you'll have the mouth filed far open and lots more mouth behind it.

If I ever get motivated to do anything about mine, I will probably just pein it shut with a piece of brass and drill and file a slot for the adjuster back one width of the adjuster from the peined hole. Total time investment would be less, and I'd get to the same place. Mine is right on the bleeding edge, and I'll be able to use it like that for a while if I choose to use it like that instead of closing the mouth.

[Tom Blank]

I have a LN #5 and about one step beyond zero experience setting up or using a quality plane. I was able to adjust the CB to something close to 1/64" off the edge of the blade and had no problem getting the blade/CB mounted back on the frog. There is not much clearance between the hole in the CB and the screw, but there is enough that it does not interfere with adjusting the blade to well beyond any reasonable depth of cut.

Hope that helps with your analysis.

Tom

[David Weaver]

It sort of tells us like we suspected yesterday, that it may be an issue with (or with a batch of) the frog family that includes 4 1/2s, 5 1/2s, 6s and 7s.

[Steven J Corpstein]

After reading all of the posts, I decided to chime in. I just went out and looked at my LN 4 1/2 to see what I had for clearance on the CB hole. MY CB is/always set to within .010 or less of the iron edge (I just see a hint of polished reflection on the edge of the blade), because I only take very light cuts with it and it just seems to give me a nice surface finish that way.

The mouth is set to where it just passes the shavings without jamming up, I can barely see any light passing. The clearance hole in the LN CB (improved model) is fairly much centered on the screw, maybe slightly towards the top half of the clearance hole, but I could extend the CB past the edge and still have room.

My point is as others mentioned, I'd contact Lie-Nielsen and see if you have a bad one.

[David Weaver]

Do you remember about when you got yours? I'd say my 7 is probably from 2009, or 2008. I guess I could look on the box.

[Steven J Corpstein]

Do you remember about when you got yours? I'd say my 7 is probably from 2009, or 2008. I guess I could look on the box.

If you were referring to when I got mine, I've had it for about 4 years, right before LN started offering the higher frog option.

[John A. Callaway]

I got it the first week of January 2010

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Did anyone hear back from LN about their thoughts on this?

[Charlie Stanford]

I'm curious how your experiments turn out - I just got done tuning 5 #3's (inspired by the same video) and the closest I could get the cap iron was 1/32" before clogging stopped things in their tracks (1/32" worked very well). A Bailey style cap iron seems pretty close to what the video shows, I'm curious how/if LN cap changes things.
Here is a photo of the wadding when the cap is too close to the edge along with a shaving when things are well adjusted:
http://zkprojectnotebook.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/wad.jpg?w=600
(Too big to attach)

If the chipbreaker fits the flat side of the blade then the fix is to move the frog back a little to open up the mouth.

[John A. Callaway]

I still never have called them. I had a baby a few days after we created and discussed this issue. I am moving to Atlanta next month and when I get my shop set back up I will ( really want too ) experiment with this some more and perhaps call LN and try to talk with somebody. But ultimately, I would suspect that is a just a design issue, not in a negative way, but just in a way that they never saw any reason to produce the CB so that it could be set up this way. When it is back about 1/8" , it works perfectly. In the mean time, I am going to start shopping for another Stanley 3 or perhaps a 4 and mess with it. ( probably a four, I really really want a bronze three from LN ) I want to try to hone a 50 or 80 degree edge on a hump back CB and try it out on some pretty wild grain Sapele I have saved.

[David Weaver]

You'll be most satisfied with the stock chipbreaker if you just clean up the edge of it and get a tight fit. The stock angle is fairly steep, it's probably somewhere between those two where the chip meets the edge. It works very well as it is, I think you'll be pleased with it.

[John A. Callaway]

You are referring to the Stanley humpback , correct ? I read your article on wood central and saw where you mentioned that perhaps less is more ..... So just flatten out the underside ( undercut if necessary ) and clean up the top side and give it a try? That is the plan and then see where that takes me......

Has anyone tried this set up on a LN number three ? Did it work ? Is the CB set up to accommodate this set up compared to the arrangement of the 5.5 ?

[David Weaver]

Right, the stock stanley "humped back" chipbreaker, if anything, it might be a bit steep, but you can't do anything to make it more shallow, it'll get too thin. Yep, just clean up the front of it and do just enough on the underside to get a good tight fit between the leading edge of the chipbreaker and the back of the iron. If you find it's too steep stock and bulling chips, then just back it off a little. It'll still be close enough that it will affect a chip that gets thick enough to cause tearout against the grain.

[george wilson]

If my LN planes have that problem,I'll put the irons in the vertical mill and mill the hole longer with a carbide end mill. LN does need to know if they are not making their CB's properly.

[David Weaver]

If my LN planes have that problem,I'll put the irons in the vertical mill and mill the hole longer with a carbide end mill. LN does need to know if they are not making their CB's properly.

The trouble with them (mine too) is the location of the chipbreaker slot, where the adjuster fits. It is just barely at the bleeding edge of not being adjusted when the cap iron is all the way forward. Fortunately, it is a jointer and doesn't need to be as finely set.

I'm going to drill mine (chipbreaker) some day when I remember it, about a millimeter ahead of the current adjuster hole in the chipbreaker, and file it out square.

[Phillip Dejardin]

Has anyone tried to reproduce the Kawai and Kato experiment WITHIN a plane body? If I remember correctly, they concluded that a chip breaker with a 80 degree bevel angle set back 0.3mm from the edge produced a better balance between low tear out and smooth shavings compared with a 50 degree bevel angle set back 0.1mm from the edge. In other words, it was a balance between low tear out and clogging the plane - you couldn't get the best of both worlds.

Someone needs to sacrifice their new LN #4 by shearing off a side of their plane body so the results can be clearly filmed. . . Anyone? It's for science. People will speak highly of you!

[Jim Koepke]

Someone needs to sacrifice their new LN #4 by shearing off a side of their plane so the results can be clearly filmed. . .

It could likely be done with a mirror temporarily mounted on the plane with a cell phone camera.

As my comment in another thread and a book page from 1892 posted by Jason (hope that is the correct credit given) indicate, it isn't so much the visual evidence as it is a practice that seems to have been working for those who take the time to try it and find the sweet spot.

jtk

[David Weaver]

The controlling factor in clogging in the plane isn't necessarily how closely you set the cap iron, it's the tightness of the mouth and the lack of clearance that can create (as in, it's better if the iron isn't up laser tight against the back of the mouth). Some later and lower quality wooden planes just aren't going to tolerate setting their cap iron correctly no matter the setting, I don't know if they expected craftsmen to finish the job of the planemaker back then because of the competition driving down the plane costs (and quality).

I haven't found it too productive to worry that much about the angle, and whatever the bailey chipbreaker stock setting is on a millers falls, that's the best tearout reduction I've gotten and also the nicest feel. I could be underestimating the angle that the chip hits that curved chipbreaker, but I figured it's probably closer to 50 than 80, maybe it's in the middle. I tried 80 with a japanese plane, where having the extra relief is useful (shooting in theory for the .3 setting vs. the .1). It's not as quick to set the double iron when it's retained by a pin and not attached to the iron, and the edge isn't visible. I still just found it easier to use a western plane and got better surface quality with the wester plane in anything where the planes would create tearout without the cap iron set closely.

I wonder what results they would've gotten if they shot the difference in distance and used an angle slightly above 50. I think that's a better setting, and it's easier to set and not have to fiddle with. It will still prevent tearout if you accidentally take too deep of a cut.

[Phillip Dejardin]

It could likely be done with a mirror temporarily mounted on the plane with a cell phone camera.

As my comment in another thread and a book page from 1892 posted by Jason (hope that is the correct credit given) indicate, it isn't so much the visual evidence as it is a practice that seems to have been working for those who take the time to try it and find the sweet spot.

jtk

Sweet spot?! That sounds like some mumbo jumbo from 19th century woodworking savages. Seriously though, I'm just curious if anyone has tried out the bevel angles and distances used by Kawai and Kato within a plane body, namley, using real-world sets of conditions. The absence of a plane body seems to me to be a significant variable left out of the equation.

By the way, I like the cell phone camera idea.

[Phillip Dejardin]

The controlling factor in clogging in the plane isn't necessarily how closely you set the cap iron, it's the tightness of the mouth and the lack of clearance that can create (as in, it's better if the iron isn't up laser tight against the back of the mouth).

Agreed, but I interpreted their focus on the smoothness of shavings as a proxy of sorts for exactly that. They didn't have the benefit of a tight or loose mouth in their experiment, which is why I'm curious about what the results would be when that factor is included. Not that any of this would make a differences in a practical sense. It's just interesting.

[David Weaver]

I did. I think between those two suggested settings is optimal. That's the "sweet spot". Where the chip only gets influenced if it's a little thicker. Those thicker cuts are usually the ones that would cause tearout.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Rather than chopping up a plane, what about using something like a #10 or it's brethren? ( If someone wants to buy me a nice 10 1/2 or 10 1/4 I'll gladly shoot the video. ;) )

[John A. Callaway]

I'm gonna dust off this old thread.... Because - well - basically, between moving to a new city and traveling for work on the railroad constantly and being home with my wife and daughter - I had to take a bit of a hiatus from my tools for a while.... but recently I have been able to start aggravating the inventory of wood in my possession. First, I cant say how great the Goldenrod has worked ( I got a mention on last week's wood talk podcast ). My tools have been kept in excellent condition in my cabinet.

I bought the LAJ and the LAS from LN a while back and have been working with them mostly to truly get a awareness of this set up.... and I do like it, but I honestly like my bevel downs a bit better, so I pulled the Five and a Half out and started getting re acquainted with it.

So - on to this issue.... I tried to do a little searching of the forum to see if LN may have been made aware of this and maybe some one has gotten either a replacement chip breaker or some other solution. I guess after the holiday I will email them if there is something that can be worked out... If anybody knows any thing relevant, I would appreciate the input.

[bridger berdel]

IIRC, LN's stance is that their planes are designed to achieve performance via high angle frogs, setting chipbreakers close is a fad, their chipbreaker is superior in every way to Leonard Bailey's design, don't bother us with silly talk about japanese videos, just shut up and buy a high angle frog.

[Brian Holcombe]

I'm gonna dust off this old thread.... Because - well - basically, between moving to a new city and traveling for work on the railroad constantly and being home with my wife and daughter - I had to take a bit of a hiatus from my tools for a while.... but recently I have been able to start aggravating the inventory of wood in my possession. First, I cant say how great the Goldenrod has worked ( I got a mention on last week's wood talk podcast ). My tools have been kept in excellent condition in my cabinet.

I bought the LAJ and the LAS from LN a while back and have been working with them mostly to truly get a awareness of this set up.... and I do like it, but I honestly like my bevel downs a bit better, so I pulled the Five and a Half out and started getting re acquainted with it.

So - on to this issue.... I tried to do a little searching of the forum to see if LN may have been made aware of this and maybe some one has gotten either a replacement chip breaker or some other solution. I guess after the holiday I will email them if there is something that can be worked out... If anybody knows any thing relevant, I would appreciate the input.

Mine does this, and so I've had to compensate by tightening the mouth more than I prefer. I keep the chip breaker about .010" on the jointer plane...no tear out.

[Pedro Reyes]

I was about to post this and luckily saw this old thread.

The issue is with the LN chipbreaker having the oval hole too close to the leading edge of the chipbreaker. I compared it to a stock stanley (about 3/16" difference). This forces you to have a large spacing, at least on my set up, Hock iron on type 8 stanley #8 with, of course, a lie Nielsen chipbreaker. My blade has to be about 1/8" in front of the chipbreaker edge if I want any blade to stick out before the adjustment nut falls off. Not sure if this is the case if I had a full LN set up (plane). The blade and it's wear has no effect on this, it is solely a cap iron/frog issue.

Does anyone have either a hock or a Lee Valley aftermarket chipbreaker they would kindly measure (leading edge to slot)


Pedro

Edit: I guess if I ask for measurements the least I could do is measure mine.

LN 2-5/8" cap iron, distance to slot 3-13/16"
Stanley 2-5/8" cap iron, distance to slot 4"
LN 2" cap iron, distance to slot 3-1/2"
Hock 2" cap iron, distance to slot 3-5/8"

[Jim Koepke]

If anyone cares here is some information from an old Stanley catalog circa 1953:

314225

314226

It would seem LN missed an important piece of the puzzle when they made planes in the old Stanley style.

It was missed by many of us who have used our planes for years without looking through an out of print catalog for a bit of instruction.

Hopefully they can see their way to making a little change to their product line.

jtk

[Pedro Reyes]

IIRC, LN's stance is that their planes are designed to achieve performance via high angle frogs, setting chipbreakers close is a fad, their chipbreaker is superior in every way to Leonard Bailey's design, don't bother us with silly talk about japanese videos, just shut up and buy a high angle frog.

To add to my previous comments. I own several LN products, all of them superb. I only own two of their bench planes (62 not counting as one, and bevel up anyway), a #2 & a #4-1/2. In their defense I can say that neither of them have this issue, the adjusting screw is about mid point even with the cap iron extremely close. I also have a Stanley #5 (type 9) which also works with the LN chipbreaker, it has only been my #8 type 8 (different frog from type 9) which has an issue, even at over 1/16".

In summary, a LN chipbreaker on a LN plane can be adjusted half an Armstrong ;-) behind the cutting edge and not have issues with the adjusting nut.

Opens some other questions... Did the distance from edge to slot (in chipbreakers) change over time?

Pedro

[Kees Heiden]

Time for a recal.:D

[Warren Mickley]

If anyone cares here is some information from an old Stanley catalog circa 1953:

314225

314226

It would seem LN missed an important piece of the puzzle when they made planes in the old Stanley style.

It was missed by many of us who have used our planes for years without looking through an out of print catalog for a bit of instruction.

Hopefully they can see their way to making a little change to their product line.

jtk

Lots of people knew about this stuff. When I first mentioned the double iron on a forum in 2005, I got this response:

The verdict is pretty much "in" on chip breakers.
Chip breakers are simply a way of keep the blade (and consequently edge) held firmly, and they also help the shaving "clear" the plane.
Despite loads of books and "the old guys" telling you different, in some cases with diagrams :-)

One well known tool monger said you could not trust Holtzapffel (1846) or Nicholson (1812) because they were "tool mongers"

The problem was that people thought they knew better, not that information was not available.

[george wilson]

I am not surprised at their attitude.

[Jim Koepke]

Lots of people knew about this stuff.

[edited for brevity]

The problem was that people thought they knew better, not that information was not available.

This seems to be a recurring theme in the history of human existence.

jtk

[Pedro Reyes]

Bump, update and new issue

LN is a world class company and they will make sure your issue is addressed.

In addition to my issue with the LN chipbreaker, which had no work around, I encountered another issue, this time on a 5-1/4 with a PMV11 iron and veritas chipbreaker to match, the problem this time was not about the blade not protruding, perhaps partially due to a more generous setting of the chipbreaker back from the edge, however the head of the screw which holds the blade-chipbreaker combo was hitting the bottom edge of the cavity (the cavity in all frogs specifically for housing the cap iron screw) in the frog. This had a simple solution, I ground the head of that screw to a slightly smaller diameter, the knurling is gone, but that is a minor inconvenience.

/p