Poll - Have you Tried the new old Cap Iron?

[David Weaver]

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to poll people over the whole chipbreaker / cap iron subject and see what people have tried and what they've found for themselves.

Sometime around when I started talking about this, I can't remember if it was before or after Bill Tindall's translated kato and kawai stuff started filtering out, Raney Nelson (who makes and sells planes and has a lot of interaction with buyers, and presumably high-end users) mentioned that he's only ever met two people who use the cap iron on their plane to control surface quality.

I'm guessing that's changed a lot. To me, the important part of the debate is over, and the rest of the hair splitting (whether or not we can find a wood that will stump the cap iron, etc and where's the historical writeups on how to set it?) is something I'll gladly leave for other people, but I'm curious as to how many people have tried it and how it's changed their plans.

For me personally, it's probably changed what the iron configuration will be in at least half of the remaining infills that I want to build, and maybe for the cheaper because I can find a good older parallel cap iron and iron set for about $50 from time to time. A really good modern single iron of the size and thickness that I like for a single iron plane is not cheap. It's also relieved me from filing laser tight mouths on my future bevel-up infills.

Any money saved gives me more $$ toward carving tools, which I have yet to find inexpensively anywhere.

[Chris Griggs]

Yes. Hasn't changed the fact that I will still buy premium planes, so I checked the second choice, BUT it has affected which premium planes I might buy. I'm no longer concerned about the ability to achieve high angles on BU planes or changeable high angle frogs.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Chris

I wouldn't be too quick to exclude high angles on BU planes just yet, or rush out to buy up all the Stanley #4s. There is much testing still to do. I have mentioned this elsewhere: There is the issue of wood dependence and its limitations, and the relationship with cutting angle and how they may work together. All I can say so far is that the chip breaker appears to have the effect akin to increasing the cutting angle by 10 - 15 degrees. However, in my limited experiences to date, I also find that high cutting angles will produce a better finish on the harder interlocked woods. BU planes still require less set up, as do single iron BD planes. The chip breaker is not that easy to set up, and there is not much leeway for success .. or failure. Get it right and it does make a difference. The other thing is whether the differences on the surface translate into differences under a finish. Many questions to answer before decisions are made.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Griggs]

Hi Chris

I wouldn't be too quick to exclude high angles on BU planes just yet, or rush out to buy up all the Stanley #4s. There is much testing still to do. I have mentioned this elsewhere: There is the issue of wood dependence and its limitations, and the relationship with cutting angle and how they may work together. All I can say so far is that the chip breaker appears to have the effect akin to increasing the cutting angle by 10 - 15 degrees. However, in my limited experiences to date, I also find that high cutting angles will produce a better finish on the harder interlocked woods. BU planes still require less set up, as do single iron BD planes. The chip breaker is not that easy to set up, and there is not much leeway for success .. or failure. Get it right and it does make a difference. The other thing is whether the differences on the surface translate into differences under a finish. Many questions to answer before decisions are made.

Regards from Perth

Derek




Hi Derek,

I should clarify. No intent to exclude BU planes entirely. Use my LABP with knob as a small smoother regularly, I just got and LA jack (though its main intent is shooting), and I'm strongly considering the small BU smoother. BU planes work fantastically...but as of now the worst woods I work are curly maple and curly cherry, even without the CB set closely I don't often have problems with tearout, and for me the CB has eliminated the occasional problems that I did have, as well as, allow me to be more flexible with grain direction. Anyway, given the woods I work at this point in my woodworking the ability to increase angles via swapping out blades or changing frogs is no longer a huge selling point for me. The reality for me is that even with a low-angle blade and no CB on a BU plane, I can mitigate the majority of my tearout with just a sharp blade and a tight mouth. As you know, just being diligent about keeping your blades sharp makes a huge difference, and the woods I work just aren't all that difficult. That could change some day, but for right now an ideal "go-to" smoother for me is a standard angle BD plane with a CB.

Long story short, learning to use the CB won't make me abandon BU or single iron planes entirely and I do like the idea that I can just order a second blade if I need a really high angle, but learning to set the CB most certainly has had an impact on my thinking about which planes I will buy in the future.

In all of this CB talk, the woods that any individual is working need to be part of the equation.

[David Weaver]

Derek, this may ultimately end up being something that's different for aussie folks than it is for americans.

I haven't yet found a wood we'd use to build something over here that isn't done at least as well with a double iron plane, and I think folks in the US will need to be careful when they try to find limitations to be certain that the limitations if there are any are based on anything they'd actually do with a plane. I thought I might find a piece of quartered dried up cocobolo might show me what you found with jarrah, but it didn't. The MF #9 actually did a little better job than the high angle infill, though they were close - the only difference was there was no dust with the MF 9, and there was some dust along with the shavings with a 55 degree infill. Dust is never good.

And no need to buy stanley 4s at this point, I had two millers falls #9s on my watch list last week, I don't know if one sold at $9 or not, but the seller of another plane with light surface rust only got $3.50 for theirs. I managed to find one that was crisp and new, of the preferred "red frog" variety for $20, also on ebay.

(Obviously i'm pointing this MF #9 thing out for any newbies who might want to add a plane cheaply - for some reason the red frog MF 9s and 14s are always settling back to the $10 range - a shame for such capable planes (the red frog ones, that is)).

[David Weaver]

2 people who have stated already that they've always used a cap iron... nobody ever seemed to agree with warren though when he was giving us the elusive "it's a subtle skill" type answers.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

(Obviously i'm pointing this MF #9 thing out for any newbies who might want to add a plane cheaply - for some reason the red frog MF 9s and 14s are always settling back to the $10 range - a shame for such capable planes (the red frog ones, that is)).


I wish someone would tell this to the guys who keep bidding up MF 24s higher than I feel like paying.

[David Weaver]

the 10s, 22s and 24s have never been cheap. I paid "full stanley price" for a nice 22 from walt Q, and it probably still would've gone for more on ebay. I did get a 10 for about $60, but that's not much of a discount, and sold it a while ago. I wish I hadn't now!!!

The 2 sized MFs command big bucks, too.

The 9, 14 and 18 have been consistently cheap, though. I have bought and subsequently cast off a lot of them. I wish I would've kept some of those, also, but all I have now is 2 9's and a 22 (that I haven't used much, it's hard to put down a lie nielsen 7).

[Chris Griggs]

Joshua, I found you a good deal on a set of MF planes - search 400265372750 on the Bay......

[David Weaver]

I know what that ebay item is without even having to look. Or at least I can guess. I think it'll be there for a while as part of the magical "the individual items are worth twice as much now that they're in a group".

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Yeah, I kind of knew which auction Chris was talking about without looking.

[David Weaver]

curiously, at this point, there are more folks answering they've always used the cap iron than anything else.

If someone is one of those folks, i'd be curious to know if you ever have tearout at all on figured wood. Like ever at all. I wonder if I should've split that question into two.

[steven c newman]

Some of this old barn wood Beech has some crazy grain to it, so far so good. I'm using a Stanley handyman 1204 with the cao almost right on the edge, maybe a blond hair back is all. No tear out yet. Also using a Union #4G, same set-up, same results. Can't fit a dime between the two (iron vs Cap iron) so something is working right. Both mouths are as closed as i can get them, iron wise.

[James Taglienti]

I always had the cap iron very close but not close enough to matter I think... I did just go buy some .010 shim stock to close the mouth of my old infill smoother to .003. It has a york pitch already and with the chipbreaker very close it seems to outperform my 603 + hock cutter + chipbreaker close. I planed some quartered cocobolo too. Got a little dust with the infill but the surface was better. Every domestic wood i have tried the surfaces are similar between the two planes.
i rarely work dead quartered, intlocked cocobolo and if I do, ill probably scrape and sand. I dont care whether or not my planes can handle every species on the planet.
All domestics should be a breeze with the chipbreaker close.
FWIW i moved both chipbreakers back to about 1/64 after the testing, i really only plan to use them very close in a SHTF situation :D The planes seem easier to push with them back a bit.

[David Weaver]

:D The planes seem easier to push with them back a bit.

Yeah, it's nice to use the plane with the cap iron set off a little, but close enough that it works as a safeguard. I don't know what that is, maybe .008" or so. Close enough so that if you accidentally take a hefty cut there's no chance of anything tearing out.

[Jeff Heath]

David

For those of us late to the party, can you please tell me what you're talking about with this "cap iron" discussion, particularly towards the aspect of setting it. It sounds like you're setting the cap iron a different way, but I'm not privy to any of these previous discussions. I guess I've been spending too much time working in the shop and not enough time reading on the forums.

Thanks,

Jeff

[Kevin Grady]

David

For those of us late to the party, can you please tell me what you're talking about with this "cap iron" discussion, particularly towards the aspect of setting it. It sounds like you're setting the cap iron a different way, but I'm not privy to any of these previous discussions. I guess I've been spending too much time working in the shop and not enough time reading on the forums.

Thanks,

Jeff

Cool, I'm not the only one that feels completely lost with this discussion. :)

[Kees Heiden]

Dont't worry Kevin and Jeff, it's very simple:
Put the capiron closer to the edge then you ever did before. 0.2 mm is a good place to start experimenting. Then go out to your shop and plane everything in sight, even against the grain, without tearout.

That's all.

[Sean Richards]

Not sure any of this is "lost" or "forgotten" knowledge. I was taught to set the cap-iron on a smoother at about 1/64" for general fine finishing and as close as possible (hair-thickness was the term used) for difficult timber. This same information (and discussion on the action of the cap-iron) is readily available in any number of woodworking books - at least in those written by authors who have had formal trade training.

[Roger Myers]

Not sure any of this is "lost" or "forgotten" knowledge. I was taught to set the cap-iron on a smoother at about 1/64" for general fine finishing and as close as possible (hair-thickness was the term used) for difficult timber. This same information (and discussion on the action of the cap-iron) is readily available in any number of woodworking books - at least in those written by authors who have had formal trade training.

As one of those who answered that I have always done this, I also agree that I didn't see any of this as new knowledge.

Do I ever have tearout with a double iron plane and chipbreaker set close? Sure... Working some real curly maple or mahogany sometimes... Often this is as much "operator error" as anything else :)

"Never", "Always"' and other absolute words are things I try to avoid in discussions like this.

I didn't enter the whole discussion earlier because like many of these discussions it is pointless to try and convince someone to change or to try something different if they are set in their ways....and it isn't my place or inclination to tell you how to do things...what works for me may be totally different.
As for me, I use what works....sometimes that is a double iron, with close set chipbreaker...sometimes a bevel up smoother, sometimes a high angle frog, sometimes a toothed iron followed by scrapers.
Just like fishing, I use what works... I enjoy fly fishing, but if they are taking worms...worms it is!

One of the reasons I enjoy Derek's posts so much is he simply shares, in a very clear manner, without preaching, what works for him, and what he observed.....

Roger

[Caspar Hauser]

....(whether or not we can find a wood that will stump the cap iron, etc and where's the historical writeups on how to set it?)

If you are looking for documentation then 'Our Workshop' published in 1866 (http://www.evenfallstudios.com/woodworks_library/our_workshop.pdf) has the 'break iron' being set at a fortieth or fiftieth of an inch from the cutting edge of a smoother. I don't doubt that the missing page 26 contains all the wisdom of the ancients regarding its setting.

CH

[Kees Heiden]

As one of those who answered that I have always done this, I also agree that I didn't see any of this as new knowledge.

Do I ever have tearout with a double iron plane and chipbreaker set close? Sure... Working some real curly maple or mahogany sometimes... Often this is as much "operator error" as anything else :)

"Never", "Always"' and other absolute words are things I try to avoid in discussions like this.



Yup, me too! Yesterday I smoothed a plank of curly maple. First a rough cut that tore out brutally, even with the capiron set rather close to the edge. So, I lightened the cut considerably, even had to sharpen the iron again. Even then there were still a few spots of troublesome grain. So I turned the plank around. The virtue of the chipbreaker in that case was not introducing new tearout in a different spot. At the end of the session all was nice and smooth. And all that with an old woodie, formerly only fit for simple carpentry work. I am still very happy with this capiron technique, even if it isn't perfect, it's still loads better then using these comon planes with the capiron to far away.

And indeed it's old news. 250 years old in fact.

[Bill Rhodus]

I recieved a woodworking "reference" book yesterday that I bought for a beginning woodworker and the reference to the cap iron setting said to set the cap iron 1/16" from the leading edge of the iron. I have found these types of statements to be the norm rather than advising to set the cap iron at 1/16" and slowly decreasing to reduce or eliminate tearout; I see practically no reference to the role a cap iron can play in reducing tear out. This is, in my opinion, why it is often a good idea for a new woodworker to get one of the new BU planes as one of their first purchases; the simplicity of the plane is very helpful and the ability to see what a plane is capable of is often not achievable for a newbie with a used plane that has not been tuned.

[David Weaver]

Kees is right about the set, it is generally closer than what most people are used to, to the point that there is resistance in the cut, but not bunching.

I haven't in about 2 1/2 months of this had any tearout on anything with or against the grain with a standard style bench plane. My woodies have been a little more problematic because they don't all feed with the cap iron set close (and I haven't spent the time to fool with them to float out areas that need more room), and I've gotten better performance out of a bench plane, maybe because the stamped irons are already pretty close to geometrically correct to eliminate tearout, and maybe because they're more open. That includes japanese planes, still on the difficult stuff better performance with a very inexpensive bench plane.

But I think if there's tearout on something like maple or mahogany on a smoother cut, then something isn't set right.

I intended for the question about people who have used the cap iron effectively for a long time to be those who have completely eliminated tearout in their shop from woods that otherwise can be planed at all. I know that warren has said before that he's not had an issue with tearout since 1977 or something. I believe with some experimentation that is the case, and it is an appropriate measure of whether or not you're setting the cap iron right.

On the worst curly maple I have (and I have some of the most unruly I've seen, bought from the instrument stock at a supplier in NY), if the cap iron is set right, you literally can't push the plane, but you will at worst have a fuzzy surface - but still no tearout.

What strikes me (and I figured this would come up) about 2 months ago when I thought I would try to match warren's experience of no tearout regardless, is that I figured either nobody would say anything, or a lot of people would say "this is nothing new", but when someone asks what plane they should get next time for "difficult woods like curly maple" on here, I didn't see anyone else saying "a common bench plane is plenty for it".

So if you get tearout on anything other than a directly across the grain cut (which isn't a finishing cut anyway) with curly maple, then there is room for improvement in setting the cap iron right. I wish I lived close to derek. Then he and I could compare the woods that cause me problems regardless of what plane I use, and the woods that cause him problems, because so far either the infill and the bench plane plane something without tearout, or neither of them will plane the subject wood perfectly, but both are still good (and the case where I've found that is something few people are likely to plane much of - very dry quartered cocobolo that was dead quartered with irregularity in the quartered face from who knows what).

[David Weaver]

If it sounds like i'm being preachy by saying that, that's not really my intention, but I've been on the other side of it where I didn't believe it would be the case, and took a deep cut with a bench plane and tore something out, etc. and figured maybe the people who said they see no tearout with ordinary planes were either taking super light cuts (not productive, that's the kind of thing that's good for uninitiated passers-by at a trade show), were being careful about stock selection, or were just not being completely honest. And there are several things you can do to peeve people on here:

1) tell them their work isn't that good (that's not my bag)
2) tell them they probably need to work on their sharpening
3) and in this case, tell people there is more room for improvement with use of their tools when the message that's coming everywhere else is ("buy a different tool made for that")

Since this seems to have been a topic I was totally wrong on for years (I was firmly in the single thick iron, steeper pitch and super tight mouth camp), my only intention is to throw it up as an option that is just as effective as anything else, and the likelihood is that you can avoid spending money if that is an issue to you (it never has been for me, though, my wallet opens more easily than it should).

[Chris Griggs]

I'm not sure its that Dave or I or anyone else, thought it was wholly lost or forgotten or that its new knowledge. I remember reading to do this to when I first started working with planes a few year ago, but very quickly wrote it off as hocus pocus. I think it has been lost and written off in modern woodworking media. Chris Schwarz and Rob Cosman, who both obviously influence a lot of "gentleman woodworkers" have both said things about there being no need to set a CB close to the edge OR that the CBs purpose is only to engage the adjustment mechanism OR that the only purpose was to stiffen thin blades. I also have never once seen a woodworking magazine suggest that a CB should be set any closer than 1/32. There are certainly other ways to mitigate tearout, but again, my point is that for those of us who have been and are learning to woodwork through online media, DVDs, and magazines, setting the CB close enough to actually impact the shaving has become lost knowledge to some extent.

This article by Chris Schwarz (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/taming_handplane_tear-out) (item no. 6 in the article discusses chipbreakers) is the specific one that led me to not bother with CBs. Its actually a great article with a lot of great advice (I am a for the most part a Schwarz fan), but I no longer agree with his assessment of the function of chipbreakers. Given that this is the wisdom I was previously following (and I am guessing I'm not the only one), learning to use the CB effectively as a CB is definitely "new-to-me" knowledge.

[John McPhail]

+1. I thought this was basically common knowledge.

The amount of discussion relating to this lately has been really surprising to me.



Not sure any of this is "lost" or "forgotten" knowledge. I was taught to set the cap-iron on a smoother at about 1/64" for general fine finishing and as close as possible (hair-thickness was the term used) for difficult timber. This same information (and discussion on the action of the cap-iron) is readily available in any number of woodworking books - at least in those written by authors who have had formal trade training.

[Roger Myers]

David,
Didn't take your comments as preachy at all...I think it is a good discussion.
As I said, when I do get tearout with the iron set close (and I have never measured how close, but it is generally pretty darn close on the smoother), it is often operator error... What kind of error? Too deep a cut... Too long between honing... Not respecting grain direction... And so on...

Other things... I do surface the mating edge of the chipbreaker to have a real tight fit to the iron.
And often, simply skewing the plane (effectively changing the cutting angle) is all it takes.

Mahogany, the really figured stuff, has so much interlocking grain that it can present challenges under the best set of circumstances... And while I suppose there are times when I get some tearout with a close set iron that I could stop and set it even closer (after all there is a trade off in it being set too close, as many have noted), frankly I will just grab a different smoother and give it a swipe or two... If that doesn't work, then the scraper. Working fast and efficient is important, and that is where the toothed iron can come into play... Rapid surfacing with no tearout, to be followed by a smoother or scraper...

Your point with respect to being able to accomplish most or all of this with a single plane, and on a limited budget is important...and a lesson to many...it surely doesn't take a major investment in all the latest and greatest to accomplish excellent work... A look at the work of the master craftsmen of days past is a testament to that...

And as I said earlier, I was taught that there is a relationship between a close fit chipbreaker and reduced tearout...I can't point to a specific citation or person, but I suspect it was either Al Breed or Garrett Hack who directed me in that manner... But, I never ( hehe..there is the use of one of those absolute words) heard any experienced furniture master describe a technique that absolutely eliminates tearout.... Except sandpaper (which I use as little as possible) :)

Good discussions....

Roger

[David Weaver]

Roger, it's interesting to me that (and I've only been playing with hand tools for 6 years) in the era of information availability explosion and new manufacturers, a lot of people are referring to now as the hand tool renaissance or whatever. But the folks who learned before all of this seem to be more well informed.

People in my boat almost uniformly until recently thought that planing difficult wood was a near specialty that required a ramp up in tooling.

I do like the discussion, I've learned a lot from it, for one to dig a little deeper to figure out why a design exists as it does.

The other side of this that's become clear is that stock and thinner irons are a lot more capable than most of us have been led to believe (it is still nice to have a new iron that holds an edge for a really long time, though, too).

[Roger Myers]

Roger, it's interesting to me that (and I've only been playing with hand tools for 6 years) in the era of information availability explosion and new manufacturers, a lot of people are referring to now as the hand tool renaissance or whatever. But the folks who learned before all of this seem to be more well informed.

People in my boat almost uniformly until recently thought that planing difficult wood was a near specialty that required a ramp up in tooling.

I do like the discussion, I've learned a lot from it, for one to dig a little deeper to figure out why a design exists as it does.

The other side of this that's become clear is that stock and thinner irons are a lot more capable than most of us have been led to believe (it is still nice to have a new iron that holds an edge for a really long time, though, too).

Well...there is a possible connection between the manufacturers of new things and the ideas put forth that these new things work better :)

And, in fact, in many cases they do.... Just as a '32 Ford and a 2012 BMW will both transport you from point A to point B...how they do it and with what effort on the part of the user, may differ.

To me, it doesn't matter how you get there...that is a matter of personal choice..as I said, I am not a purist either. I can certainly take a board from tree to table with only hand tools...but I generally don't. I also almost always finish my work with either a hand plane or scraper and try to avoid sandpaper.... But I do have several sanders, both portable and drum, and they get used.

As far as my personal choice for smoothing on the more difficult woods... I tend first to reach for my bevel up smoother... I like how it feels and works... But I also have vintage Stanleys, old woodies, and infills... So they also get used....
What never works ( and here I am comfortable in saying never ) is a poorly sharpened tool....

So long before the discussion on which type of plane, or how tight to set the mouth, or the chip breaker, or secondary bevels, or...or..or.... Should come basic instruction, guidance, and practice in sharpening and honing...

Cheers,
Roger

[Bob Strawn]

I have not planed a huge range of woods, so I cannot claim amazing expertise. I have been using chip breakers with great success for a few years, so I do have a little accumulated experience with a few woods. So I will give my limited experience and what I have learned so far. The first thing I will say is that if you can go with the grain, go with the grain. If a scraper will do the job, just use a scraper. I have heard that a scraper will not do well on softwood, but my experience strongly disagrees. I cannot claim that I have gotten the chip breaker to be a magic plane in any direction tool for preventing all tear out. I will say that when I have a difficult section of wood, I usually reach for a plane with a chip breaker before I reach for a higher angle plane. I am told that Japanese planes are made for use with soft woods, but I tend to prefer my Japanese planes for hardwoods and my Stanley for softwoods. In either case I usually prefer a chip breaker.

Osage (2360) is an extremely hard and tenacious wood that is also very flexible. The end grain of osage when cut at a slight angle and well polished, produces one of the most beautiful wood effects with depth, shimmer and chatoyancy. On osage I prefer low bed angle with a high blade angle plane that is very sharp and held with a good skew. The chip breaker on a Japanese plane has done much better for me on osage than the chip breaker on a well tuned Stanley. For my best results, I start the chip breaker so close that only my imagination can tell it is further back than the cutting iron. I need magnification to see the glint of the cutting iron projected barely forward of the chip breaker. Osage can dull and at times even blunt a tool with a single pass. It can be an amazing pain to take just three light shavings and then have to take out the blade and strop it. This makes the single iron plane much more rewarding than the plane with a chip breaker. The consistently horrid blow out as you plane to the edge, forces you to plane toward the center. A beveled edge, must be a low angle bevel and wide to prevent blowout. Thin shavings are the way to go.

Mesquite (2345) is a ridged wood with no flex. The grain can split very easily. It is wear resistant, tough and the most stable wood known. It can take a beating, and it's natural grain and coloring ranges from magnificent to exquisite. At times mesquite can be the grand champion of blowout. A mesquite board can reverse direction like a burl on any other wood. Despite these problems, I find mesquite to be a pleasure to work, easy to shape and always worth the effort. I prefer a chip breaker to a low angle high bevel plane on mesquite. To start I try the chip breaker at the smallest gap that I can clearly see light glinting from the cutting blade. Probably 1 to 2 thousandths of an inch.

Mountain Juniper (626) is what we call cedar in our area. Lovely wood, if only the purple color could be preserved it would be one of the most dramatically lovely woods you could find. Stable, aromatic and fun to work. This is somewhat flexible if thin, but thicker wood is more likely to break than bend. If the wood is knotty, I prefer a low bed high bevel plane for working it. The problem with this wood is that the knots can be worse than nails would be. Some lovely wood has tons of tiny hard knots that will mangle a low bevel plane blade in an instant. I love working with all sorts of cedars, but this is one wood that requires a lot of thinking as you work it. The tougher modern steels really shine when used on this wood. Generally I prefer O1 for the ease of stropping, but in this case the toughness of the exotic steels is worth it. If the wood is clean, then the grain is usually stable enough to allow you to plane with the grain. No special tricks are needed here apart from keeping you shavings under 1/64" or so. Nice even grained juniper carves well, planes well, and is a pleasure to work. With the occasional grain reversals, a sharp blade and a steep skew angle will work for a high angle iron or a chip breaker.

Western Red Cedar (350) is the cedar I can get at the big box stores. Soft, easy to work, pretty wood. Smells great. Prone to splitting. A bevel will usually stop blow out. I like a chip breaker set just a touch closer than the thickness of the shaving. This varies with the plane and how jam prone it is.

In my own experience Oak is quite variable. I like working with it, and generally I prefer a Japanese plane with a chip breaker set close.

Bob

[David Weaver]

Thanks for the summary, bob. Excellent.

I had similar experience to yours with osage with a few of my planes that were O1 and A2. If it has enough silica in it, things go downhill fast.

Enough that I had a fit and bought two mujingfang planes. They are incredible at holding an edge in wood like that.

You definitely have a menu of woods that are outside of the range of my comment about not ever having tearout (those being more typical things like hard or soft maple, cherry, beech, walnut, etc., and occassionally cocobolo, which can be problematic sometimes but usually presents more of a problem with being abrasive than with tearout ).

[David Weaver]

Should come basic instruction, guidance, and practice in sharpening and honing...

Cheers,
Roger

Goodness knows we can beat that subject to death here, even talked about hanging hairs to test edges before.

But hopefully for this conversation, we're assuming someone can sharpen just about reflexively before they start trying to really squeeze everything out of a bench plane (something I wouldn't normally do without this recent fascination, anyway, I'd just reach for an infill plane instead).

[Chris Griggs]

Just reflecting out loud here...

As much as I'm happy to have this "new-to-me" ability to use the CB to mitigate tearout, I do find myself wondering whether or not it is something I will come to prefer/rely on in the long run. I'm in between projects at the moment so its fun to experiment and have as a new skill in my arsenal, but I always find that what I like when I'm dinking around varies from what I actually grab when I'm mid project. Whether I'm planing or sharpening or what-have-you, when I'm mid way thru a project my tendancy is to grab whatever is closest at hand and simplest to use and sharp (or quick to sharpen) and in that respect single iron and BU planes could win out for me in the long run as my tool set grows... its tough to say what the future holds. I will always be glad that I know that the CB actually can make a difference though, even if I do not come to rely on it in the long run.

[David Weaver]

I will probably go back to using my house made planes, too, just because I don't want to explain to myself why I can do as much as fast with a $10-$20 plane as one (single iron plane) that I spent $300 on supplies to make and then spent about 65 or 70 hours making. It's too ugly to be a wall piece, anyway, so I have to use it!

[Kees Heiden]

This article by Chris Schwarz (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/taming_handplane_tear-out) (item no. 6 in the article discusses chipbreakers) is the specific one that led me to not bother with CBs. Its actually a great article with a lot of great advice (I am a for the most part a Schwarz fan), but I no longer agree with his assessment of the function of chipbreakers. Given that this is the wisdom I was previously following (and I am guessing I'm not the only one), learning to use the CB effectively as a CB is definitely "new-to-me" knowledge.

Chris made a pretty big mistake in that article: Trying to combine a tight mouth and close set chipbreaker. No wonder his plane clogs and chokes. I would hate it too.

[David Weaver]

Yeah, that's sort of a belt and suspenders move that gets in the way of function.

I've heard various people lately say they've combined a tight mouth with a cap iron, though, and I don't know why anyone would want to do that. A mouth has to be super-tight to work on its own, at least as well as a cap iron, and few of the bench planes I've come across have a tidy enough mouth to do that. Mine (frogs) are backed off flush with the casting now, and they work superbly compared to what I ever thought they'd be capable of.

[James Taglienti]

Yeah, that's sort of a belt and suspenders move that gets in the way of function.

I've heard various people lately say they've combined a tight mouth with a cap iron, though, and I don't know why anyone would want to do that.

I suppose i tried it out of curiosity, perhaps the same type that made you try the chipbreaker thing in the first place.
if I could combine a tight mouth and a tight chipbreaker successfully on a craftsman made plane im sure anyone else could on that or a manufactured iron plane. I think it worked great. Granted the cuts were so light that i dont think it could clog if it tried... But it worked

[Jeff Heath]

Well, darn......I thought you guys were talking about something new that I should do to my chipbreakers that would vastly improve finish quality. This is not "new news". I've been setting cap irons a wisp away from the iron edge for longer than I've had a computer, and back when none of my hair was silver. I don't consider that a new idea.

A properly sharpened iron is only half the battle. The cap iron also needs to be tuned properly. I'm sure there's been thousands of discussions on this, so I won't mention more.

I have worked on timbers where a high angle frog, a freshly sharpened iron and properly tuned cap iron still won't give tearout free surfaces. It's rare, but it happens. At that I point, I don't stare at the wood wondering what to do; I reach for my LA jack, insert a high angle ground iron specific for the task, and plane the surface. If that don't work, it's sucky time, because then it's card scrapers and hot fingers.

I was really hoping you guys were going to tell me something new.......disappointed but hanging on.

Jeff

[David Weaver]

Jeff, it's not new - like the honky tonk man said when someone asked him if he made up his wrestling gimmick "no, I stole the idea from someone else, just like everyone else did. Nobody's had an original idea in a long time"

That's why I used the words new and old sort of as a joke. "new old" chipbreaker setting, new to some, old to others.

It must not have been unknown for quite a long time since double iron planes almost eliminated single iron planes for a while.

However, a lot of the current wave of woodworking instructors have not gone into it in detail (at least not to the point where they say that if you can't keep up with a 55 degree single iron plane, then you're doing something wrong), and many have gone out of their way to describe moving it out of the way. So those of us relatively new have fiddled a little in the past, but didn't know how seriously we should take it.

[Bob Strawn]

David, I have worked very little with cherry and beech, but with the small amount of maple, hard or soft that I have used, it was pretty easy to find a sweet point for the chip breaker, and it was a total delight to work. Maple really seems to want to cooperate. I am quite jealous of folk that have it common to their area. I have really only used walnut on a lathe, or on very small pieces. I can easily see where it would be a cooperative wood as well.

It makes certain sense that the woods that are classic to American woodworking would work easily with a chip breaker. The mutual functionality would reinforce the use of each other.

Bob

[Sam Takeuchi]

Well, darn......I thought you guys were talking about something new that I should do to my chipbreakers that would vastly improve finish quality. This is not "new news". I've been setting cap irons a wisp away from the iron edge for longer than I've had a computer, and back when none of my hair was silver. I don't consider that a new idea.

A properly sharpened iron is only half the battle. The cap iron also needs to be tuned properly. I'm sure there's been thousands of discussions on this, so I won't mention more.

I have worked on timbers where a high angle frog, a freshly sharpened iron and properly tuned cap iron still won't give tearout free surfaces. It's rare, but it happens. At that I point, I don't stare at the wood wondering what to do; I reach for my LA jack, insert a high angle ground iron specific for the task, and plane the surface. If that don't work, it's sucky time, because then it's card scrapers and hot fingers.

I was really hoping you guys were going to tell me something new.......disappointed but hanging on.

Jeff

This whole "setting cap iron close" thing is about not needing high angle blade or HA frog in order to tackle most widely used materials, even against the grain. The idea is that you can do away with anything more than the basic bench plane, and BU plane and HA frog are not necessary in order to produce tear out free surface (in most cases). If your answer to tear out is reaching for a HA frog plane and LA/BU plane the moment you see a tear out, you missed the whole point of big discussion.

[Metod Alif]

The geometry of a card scraper is (to my eyes) essentially the same as the one with the chipbreaker being very close to the edge of an iron. Of course, scrapers have been used for a while too.
Best wishes,
Metod

[george wilson]

I just watched a re run episode of the Woodwright's Shop,where Chris Swartz(sp?) was demonstrating planes. He remarked that the chip breaker's purpose was to stiffen the blade,and had a notch to fit the depth adjustment lever. He said there was no other purpose for it. I noticed that he had his chip breaker set about 1/16" from the cutting edge,at least on one plane they showed a close up of.

This is not an attack,just the facts.

I can see no need for the extra complication involved in making the chip breaker and its screw if that is all it ever does. Just make the iron thicker. In fact,the English made what they called "gauged irons",which were MUCH thicker than a normal iron. My Norris has one,and it STILL has a chip breaker. The Norris's iron must be about 3/16" thick at the cutting end,and at least 1/8" thick at the other. Plus,the chip breaker usually warps the normal thickness irons hollow,so they do not lay flat against the frog. Guys are always posting about the trouble they go to to flatten their frogs,metal or on wooden planes. This is done when the blade isn't even flat? Why? In Williamsburg,the irons that the blacksmith's shop made for my wooden planes were about as thin as Stanley irons,sans chip breakers. Fettling their inclines so that the irons laid flat was VERY important to the planes not chattering.

The extra tooling to make the chip breaker and its screw would be expensive,plus the extra cost of the metal,if there is no benefit except to stiffen the blade. As a tool maker who actually made planes by the dozens,I'd certainly opt to just make the blade thicker if no other benefit was to be had,if I were also making the irons. I did make many irons for special planes such as 6" wide crown molding planes,cooper's jointers,and others,including my own personal planes,and the many I made for private sale.

The Japanese video proves the chip breaker works if adjusted properly.

Metod,you made a wise observation!!

[David Weaver]

I could also never understand the desire to lap a frog. If anyone was going to do anything effective with one, they'd scrape it so that the points of contact with an iron would be biased toward the mouth and up toward the adjuster. The sense that somehow the iron is laser flat and that under tension it will sit evenly across a vast expanse is goofy, especially when lapping will more likely just create a high spot in the center which still probably won't matter, because the iron is getting bent down by lever cap pressure - still a pointless exercise, though).

The only thing I've ever seen worthy of doing on an otherwise non-defective frog is to run a file over the frog one pass feeling for any dings or burrs. I have found a couple that keep an iron from bedding, but I'd never trouble with lapping them unless they were enormously defective.

[george wilson]

From an engineering standpoint,thinking that adding another rather thin iron to the blade with ONE screw,and plenty of airspace between the two makes little sense to me. One thicker iron would be MUCH more rigid than this type of setup.

The fact that the chip breaker iron,being solid,usually warps the cutting blade,which has a slot that weakens it,makes it even less likely that the purpose is just to strengthen the cutting iron. Now you have a warped iron that contacts the frog only at the bottom and top,and usually some air space between the 2 irons just above the line where the breaker contacts the blade,and frequently some space above that also.

[Joel Goodman]

At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth is it possible that the contact of the leading edge of the chip breaker does stabilize the very end of the iron where's it very thin due to the bevel? If the chip breaker is contacting the iron very near the sharp end, the iron is effectively 1/20" or perhaps much less at that point and the slight tension from the chip breaker would logically stabilize it. Of coarse the term "chip breaker" does give a hint as to it's truest function!

[David Weaver]

On a stanley style bench plane, it definitely stabilizes the end cose to the bottom of the casting, and if set as bailey's patent says, it does it again at a point up from there (at the other end of the curve in the stamping just less than an inch away or whatever). Even with the cap iron installed in that case, it ultimately just goes wherever the tension pushes it (the iron, that is).

[george wilson]

The chip breaker may well stabilize the cutting edge. However,I used to make the edge more stable by just grinding the bevel enough to clear the wood beneath it (on a bevel down blade). That made the edge MUCH more supported than the usual acute bevel.

The Williamsburg coopers always grind their bevels extremely acute,though. I have wondered how they get away with it when they are planing white oak. They also use a lot of extremely soft juniper. I can see their acute bevels doing o.k. there.

I think they use these very acute bevels because they can more easily hand sharpen the edges more times with the metal being thinner near the cutting edges.

[Derek Cohen]

At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth is it possible that the contact of the leading edge of the chip breaker does stabilize the very end of the iron where's it very thin due to the bevel? If the chip breaker is contacting the iron very near the sharp end, the iron is effectively 1/20" or perhaps much less at that point and the slight tension from the chip breaker would logically stabilize it. Of coarse the term "chip breaker" does give a hint as to it's truest function!

Hi Joel

No foot in your mouth - this is the alternate argument of some.

However, it is relevant to note that the shaving alters shape and direction when the chip breaker is in the sweet spot. It is this that the video links to improved results, showing the change in the planing type.

For all the positive results and the awareness raising on forums around the world (I took up the banner in Oz as well), I predict that there will only be a few woodworkers that continue using the lessons learned thus far. It is much easier to use a BU plane with a high cutting angle via a microbevel, or a BD plane with a high angle frog. Getting the sweet spot takes practice; there is less certainty along the path at this stage that one is indeed going to achieve one's goal. The other methods are more predictable.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

I don't know how many people will stick to it, but i will be one of them. Like a lot of north american users, I never got the feel I wanted out of BU planes for anything other than maybe shoot board work and removing planer chatter on a board that's perfectly flat. The cambering and lateral adjustment ran me away from the BU planes, so it's become the race between steep and common pitch BD planes for me.

That's goes without even saying how much it improves a plane that I already use all the time as an interim step - an infill panel plane at common pitch. While I didn't need another trick for smoothing, I'll probably stick with that, too (definitely on a muji HSS smoother that I already keep set fairly rank), but on the panel plane, the trick is gold, and should make it so that a hand thicknessed board for me will need only one or two passes with a smoother.
The really convincing reason to use it is for folks on a budget. A fully capable jack, jointer and smoother in the US is literally a $100 proposition now.

[Kees Heiden]

Let me do a guess. How many functional double iron bevel down planes are around in the world? Old Stanleys and old woodies, but also new LN and LV bevel down planes? It runs into millions I guess.

Then how many bevel up planes are around? 10 thousand? And high angle frogs? A hundred maybe? Other niche planes like the infills, another couple of hundred? And of course I have no idea about the East Asian models.

What I want to get at, when we could educate the masses, the potential is an endless stream of very happy woodworkers without doing any good to the economy.

[Kees Heiden]

Well, I took "educating the masses" serious and made a youtube video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjpzta0FuY&feature=youtu.be

[David Weaver]

Nice. Straightforward and to the point, and a good display that the shaving thickness can be pretty generous and still clean up the surface.

[John McPhail]

Respectfully, what are your sources and sample size for this ?


...Like a lot of north american users, I never got the feel I wanted out of BU planes ...

[David Weaver]

Most of the experienced users I talk to. Whether or not it's because we didn't start on BU planes, i don't know. I think most folks have given them a fair shot if they've spent any money on premium planes. I don't know what I've mentioned previously in this post, but I did have a BUS at one point, and I still have the BU jack.

Maybe a poll on here for N/A users, perhaps one split between canadians and americans (it's just a guess, but maybe the canadians would be more loyal to the LV planes, for reasons as simple as they can get them in person).

Actually, I'm curious enough that I'll set up a poll about it.

[Shawn Pixley]

I have used the cap iron and for some woods this is enough. For others I go to high angle frog.

[James White]

Dont't worry Kevin and Jeff, it's very simple:
Put the capiron closer to the edge then you ever did before. 0.2 mm is a good place to start experimenting. Then go out to your shop and plane everything in sight, even against the grain, without tearout.

That's all.

What!!?? I better go check this out!

James