Chipbreakers and angles

[Metod Alif]

Last few day I played around with chipbreaker(s) and angles. My anecdotal (not to be confused with the thorough work that Derek Cohen produces) experience is roughly this:
I've read (can't locate the source at the moment) about the Kato - Kawai results for several (5, more?) years. I never gave them a try - had no 'need' for the woods in my projects. I would keep my chipbreakers close (about 1/32") to the edge, knowing that it is not good enough for the above results.
My first try was with with 45* bedded #4. Set the breaker as close (used a magnifying glass) as I could. Voila, great surface. The shaving were 'accordion-ized". It was a day or two later that I read on another forum, that my breaker was too close. I backed off, same nice results. A bit easier to push the plane (no accordion-ization). I compared with previous breaker settings and different angles. My 55* infills (1/4" irons, no chipbreakers) produced about the same surface - I would give an advantage to the new chipbreaker setting on #4. Then I put a 15* small backbevel on a spare iron for #4 to get a 60* degree cutting angle and got even (maybe slightly better surface) with the fine breaker setting.
I worked with walnut, beech, cherry, maple and some purpleheart, and there was some small variation across the species.
All this gives me some ideas for my own work. I would not mind if other folks would be more given to their experience and 'verification', and find what works well enough.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Dale Cruea]

I am still very new to hand planing.
I have read a boat load of different stuff on hand planing and plane set up.
From what I can gather no one can agree on much about setting up a hand plane.
I did find that putting a small angle on the front of my chip breaker appears to help tear out.
Setting the chip breaker close also helps on fine shavings.
I am finding that different settings for different woods work. Nothing is the same for all types of wood.
You need to try this then try that to get what you want.
I have found for me that using a back angle does not work well for the woods I have been using so far.
I am still experimenting and I am amazed at what I learn every time I use my hand planes.
I try to stay with the standard 30 degree bevel on my irons with no micro bevel.
I think there are enough variables in hand planing to worry about without throwing in iron angles.
Most of my planes are Stanley types with bevel down.

[Metod Alif]

Dale,

I think there are enough variables in hand planing to worry about without throwing in iron angles.
Most of my planes are Stanley types with bevel down.
If your planes have the same bed angle, there really isn't much to throw in, is it? One just experiments with what is at hand.
I posted my observations (but maybe you noticed) to encourage experimentation. It is a way to gain experience and verify if it works for you what others say works for them.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I've been experimenting with this, I've found a place where I get pretty great surface, but I'm getting my shavings all "accordionized", rather than straightened like other folks have shown. Haven't played with it much though, as I'm working poplar. Getting a surface near the telegraph from a knot where the grain changes direction - originally getting some small tear out, now I just get a slightly less shiny surface there. Burnishing it with shavings and it matches the rest of the board. The big issue I've have playing with things is having to pay more attention to grain direction on wide flat-sawn boards where it changes on one side, because the surface isn't telling me immediately - it's only when I realize I get a little less sheen that I should be going the other way. Again, a little burnishing pretty much evens it out. I need to play around with this in some hardwood.

[Maurice Ungaro]

Joshua,
The Schwartz states that he got rid of the accordion effect after putting a micro bevel on his chip breaker. Now all his shavings curl right off of the plane. Going to try that myself.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Saw that, actually. I'm not sure how to approach that as I've got a vintage style chipbreaker in there. I had honed it on my stones and thought I had ended the curve at a fairly steep bevel. Think I've got to find my honing jig and see what I can make happen.

Touching up the inside of the far side of the plane with a file (shavings where choking up in the mouth, the angle on the front was actually the same direction as the back, and there was a bit of a burr or paint build up there) helped things alot.

For now I moved things back a little, as the stuff I'm working on isn't particularly difficult.

[David Weaver]

Metod - I've been pounding this drum for a couple of months now and I've learned a little bit so far. One thing that I've found is that the 45 degree iron set back a little bit from where the shaving becomes an accordion will make a much nicer surface, the shaving will straighten some, but not get worked too hard so that it looks like it's been mangled by the cap iron.

But I've also found that I can set up a plane so that the cap iron is close enough to straighten out a thick smoother shaving, but back off the cut thickness a little bit and it's not doing as much to the chip. I'd call that a back-stop setting. It doesn't produce hard resistance in a shaving where you'd not need it to do its work (the resultant surface is better), and it prevents you from accidentally setting into a deep cut and tearing a surface. The plane will bull you almost backwards with a slightly fuzzy (but not torn) surface before it will allow you to get in trouble.

I am glad this is getting some traction among folks who have decided that they've worked long enough that they didn't need to fix any problems. I didn't need to fix any, either, but it has been certainly an excellent help in putting to bed the idea that someone needs a plane that costs hundreds of dollars or that is super steep to work around knots and highly figured grain.

[Kees Heiden]

When you are still not sure how to go about this, you could watch my video on youtube. I made it especially to show the relevant steps in tuning the chipbreaker.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjpzta0FuY

[Kees Heiden]

A follow up video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Nq1sbOhMM&feature=relmfu

[Metod Alif]

David,
I am glad that you chimed in. You seem to be (from your posts) more partial to empirical evidence (much of your own gathering) than to 'he/she said/wrote'- approach.
I do not have (or plan) double irons on the planes that I made (just my preference). However, now I can actually recommend them instead of being neutral. I like that there is more than one way to minimize tearout.

There is another (you know, two sides of a coin...) aspect on that Japanese video and a recent comment (need to locate it) made by George Wilson that caught my attention - will try to bring it up in a day or so, when I have more time.
Best wishes,
Metod

[David Weaver]

Me, too, Metod. I made a whole bunch of planes with single irons. George is certainly confirmation that single iron planes can do the best work in the world, i've never known george to give a wrong answer about anything, either, nor one that's not been thought through fully.

What I like about the whole double iron plane thing, though, is that the cheapest planes available have a thin iron with a simple stamped cap iron, and we've found they can do just about anything now with our own hands and eyes. It's a nice thing to know.

I have probably come across as very biased just because this is new to some of us (me, too), but it won't be the last time I use a single iron plane. I like them all.

[Metod Alif]

Biased? I do not see you as such. The (single iron) planes that you made are (I hope) doing a great job. But you were not blind to the the empirical evidence of what a closely set chipbreakers can do. It is nice to see people experiment and get excited when they find something 'unexpected'. There is (still) enough lore floating to the cyberspace that does not equate to the facts.
Best wishes,
Metod