A chip breaker reminder

[george wilson]

I have seen on the blog of a well known woodworking personality that he seems to have discovered that the chip breaker is indeed a functional item,and made it an article on his blog. Formerly,he had not seen its usefulness,apparently.

He does mention in the body of the writing: "After recent discussions of the Japanese film"(words to that effect,at least),he has learned the usefulness of the chip breaker. No names are mentioned,and that statement is rather brief.

I would like to remind everyone that it was David Weaver here who brought the Japanese film to our attention on SMC. I just want to make sure that credit is given where it is due. David does not have a blog,and that is a handicap to those of us who do not,or choose to not have one. I don't feel that I am currently active enough to have a blog.

I learned a lot myself from David's presentation of this material. Formerly,I had used mostly single iron antique planes,which were the norm in the 18th.C.(except for late in the period). I'd used other dodges to get around tearing,such as planing curly maple directly across the grain with a very sharp iron, sharpening to a higher angle at the cutting edge,or other methods. So,I found David's info,and the film very useful.

I am glad to see that apparently David's thread and subsequent discussions have been educational to all,even some of the "gurus" among us :)

[David Weaver]

And credit should go directly to Bill Tindall for all of the technical information, and Warren Mickley for telling us for years that if you can't use a common pitch plane to smooth a board with through strokes (no skewing, wetting, etc..) then you haven't mastered the double iron.

We all fought it for a long time, I did, too. But warren is right. Warren doesn't always get a lot of respect from us, maybe because he's subtle, but he should.

Kees was doing the same thing at the same time, before any bloggers brought anything up. Kees, Chris and I were talking about it and then Bill and I were talking about how to get marching orders to people to use it since we were vexed by Warren's explanation that "it's subtle", a craftsman like warren won't have to think about what he's doing. For the rest of us, the advice is easy.

I'd suspect that there's going to be all kinds of disinformation and misinformation about how to use the cap iron, the flow of beginners never stops. But credit guys like Warren, and credit to information miners like Bill Tindall. 10 years from now, we'll probably end up going through the same iteration again.

Use your stock vintage cap irons at their stock angle, hone the others at 45 degrees or 50 degrees, 80 degrees isn't needed. Warren has said the same, I believe - that he didn't recall having to do much with cap irons. Warren's comments are the gold standard for double iron use and its effectiveness, and should be valued above anything anyone else says.

Forum discussion is where the specifics of all of this originated, and it's where everyone picked up on it at first. The value of the open forum discussions should be credited for its re-discovery and practical use for amateurs on a wide basis. If rebroadcast is made describing the process as fiddly or difficult, it's just wrong. It's easier to learn to set the cap iron properly than it is to learn to sharpen properly.

George, you made an influential comment, too. When I said that setting a cap iron was difficult if you're talking about some thousandths of an inch, you said "it's really not that hard".

I do wish warren would participate more in discussions here, he has a lot of advice just like georges - the result of professional experience and diligent research over decades. I've argued with warren a lot only to end up on the wrong side of correct in the end. At least that made it so I knew enough not to argue with george!

[Chris Griggs]

No need to say for sure, but I assume you're talking about the Schwarz. I noticed that change in his opinion on this matter too. He was formally fairly anti CB, until Dave started posting about CBs in just about every post and then wrote an excellent online article on the subject.

Did anyone else happen to notice that in his response to FWW "Every Handplane Needs a Tuneup" video, Schwarz made a point of saying that when he sets up a new plane the CB should be no more than .005" from the edge? That's Mr. Weavers influence, which I thought was cool. It was great reminder of how many folks really read these forums.

I'm glad that this is something that Schwarz in behind now. I like his blog, and think he provides a lot of good advice for amateurs/hobbiests (like myself), and I think this is a technique a lot more newbs will be exposed to now. That said, I would like to see him post a link to Dave's article. Dave certainly didn't invent the technique, but he most certainly brought it back to life for a generation of woodworkers who largely really on the internet and other multimedia to learn the craft.

[David Weaver]

The whole exchange smoked out Mark Hennebury, too, who knows a lot more about chipbreakers than a lot of us do. Mark may have also had the videos in hand - he could've been who Bill was talking to, and he certainly had the technical information about the cap iron because the super surfacers (which are a specialty good of his) put the cap iron in use on a power tool basis, and extremely effectively. I'd assume there are gobs of guys like him who don't frequent these forums who have dead on advice that all of us could benefit from.

But for sure, without Bill's digging, I'd just have claims, Kees too.

(I think .005" is a little close as a starting point, but it's better than saying they don't work at all!!)

Maybe one day, we'll have a planing challenge at one of the woodworking shows. I sort of disappointed my own efforts of making planes when I found that my $11 millers falls smoother could hang with and in some cases better the 55 degree infill that I had made with a 3-4 thousandth mouth, especially once the irons aren't freshly sharp.

I have followed warren's advice, and have been able to plane probably a dozen large panels with nothing but through strokes, regardless of grain orientation, and the spiers panel plane copy that I had became instantly more satisfying to use when I could eliminate tearout caused by low quality wood (i.e., when you get cherry from a mill and some parts of it at a glue seam seem to run different directions, and up from the glue seam the wood seems to run in the same direction).

[george wilson]

"It's not really that hard" What a magnificent bit that was which I contributed!!!!:):):)

I know there are OTHER BLOGGERS who take older information and try to make it their own. Seems if you don't have a blog,or a good way to self promote yourself,a guy could get taken advantage of!!

[David Weaver]

Add steve elliot to bill tindall. I almost forgot that steve and bill were digging as a curious pair.

I don't make any money off of anything, so nobody can really take advantage of me, but I sure wish most folks would take advantage of the real experts on the forums (which definitely isn't me, but you, warren and mark could definitely count as such) to get advice. The forums are what we make of them, and it does no service to any of us for people to rebut someone like warren without knowing how valuable is comments are. I had to learn it the hard way. If the experts offer experienced advice, and everyone ignores it, how long can we expect them to be around? We've seen *many* come and go because people would effectively rather hear classical music played by liberace than Vladimir Horowitz.

The article we wrote was a collaborative effort, and nobody really wanted to do it. I didn't want to do it (my only expertise is in spending money on sharpening stones), but at the origination of this whole topic in early 2012 (march/april) we felt like if we sat around too long, the fruits of our experimentation would be wasted if the ultimate conclusion is "it's too hard to use the cap iron properly" or if people were running around putting 80 degree bevels on a cap iron and setting it close, only to smash a the shaft of a chip back into a softwood board, leaving clear evidence that the grain was crushed.

[Chris Griggs]

I think .005" is a little close as a starting point, but it's better than saying they don't work at all!!



I may have misquoted exactly what the distance was, I don't remember exactly what he said. He may have just said something like "a few thou from the edge" or "5-10 thou" - I don't recall exactly. It was just fun to see him make a point of mentioning it.

Once you get used to setting he CB and looking for that tiny line of reflection is gets amazingly easy to set it too close. I still frequently set it too close and need to go back and back it up a bit. My favorite use of the CB has been on jointers. With my smoother where I'm taking thin shaving I don't really need to set the CB close for most the woods I work (though I do anyway). Being able to do it right on a jointer though can save a good bit of work when you are taking moderate shavings against the grain or in woods with some figure. I now get most or all of my tearout gone with my jointer, so there is very little work to do with the smoother. For referance, I don't work crazy difficult woods, but what I have said has very recently worked for me on birdseye maple and heavily figured swirls of walnut.

EDIT: Just found the spot in the video... He says "I'm going to try and get it as absolutely close as I can. For a smoother that's 5 or 6 thousands away...."


I have no idea how close mine is usually. I'd say more than 1 sheet of paper... maybe about 2 sheets or so. So I guess that's about 8 thou - rough guess, I could be way off. Probably more for my jointers since I'm taking thicker shavings.

[Joe Bailey]

I don't feel that I am currently active enough to have a blog.

George - I'm afraid you're being overly modest -- at the risk of sounding like a sycophant, I think it's safe to say that your offhanded observations are worth more than the accumulated writings of a hundred no-name bloggers. The way I see it, you could update it once a month with whatever topic struck your fancy. And then too, there's that whole preservation-for-posterity thing.

[Kees Heiden]

I do wish warren would participate more in discussions here, he has a lot of advice just like georges - the result of professional experience and diligent research over decades. I've argued with warren a lot only to end up on the wrong side of correct in the end. At least that made it so I knew enough not to argue with george!


Yes, that's a good point. Who do you listen to in these forums? In the past I also though Warren was just an old curmudgeon. He can be very terse in his writings, which makes it difficult to understand the message.

There are other people on forums who I first thought were idiots (well sometimes everybody is an idot of course), but when you dig a little deeper you find a wealth of experience. Often the message is about keeping it simple and not buying every shiny new woodworking tool available. Make your current tools work for you, practice, use them in real life. That's how you advance.

Lately I have mostly done odd jobs around the house, so not really much planing of wood. But I've practiced a lot of sawing on all kinds of these jobs, which isn't bad either.


PS: I don't think CS ever claimed to have invented any of these old woodworking techniques. He is usually pretty honest about his source.

[Zach Dillinger]

Regardless of your religious or woodworking-dogma affiliations, I think the Buddha said it best:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"

If you don't have enough experience to evaluate something, and instead rely on the words of others to make your decisions for you, you are in serious trouble. Everyone needs enough experience to have a "BS meter" for everything in life. So much of what we are subjected to on forums is pure BS, but too many readers don't have the experience to know it when they smell... err... read it. There's an old phrase, something, something from Shinola that applies to a lot of questions.

[David Weaver]

PS: I don't think CS ever claimed to have invented any of these old woodworking techniques. He is usually pretty honest about his source.

I don't think he did, either, they seem to be getting attributed to him by other people. AT the time we were playing our games, Chris was telling everyone to set the chipbreaker back out of the way, Rob Cosman described (in video) the chipbreaker as nothing more than something to hold the blade and "don't let anyone tell you any different". David Charlesworth (I am a big fan of David, by the way) had provided instruction to add a steep back bevel to a plane, and several professional makers had said there was no way to finish wood other than to plane it, scrape it and Sand it. I have no favor for the last two, and Warren described sanding as something necessary if you don't know how to plane wood, turn on a lathe, etc.

I'd like people to recognize that this came about as a result of collective forum discussion and not by experimentation elsewhere, that's all.

My personal want to figure out what warren claimed is that I still dimension everything by hand. When you do that, you can work quickly IF you can plane to a line with fairly coarse shavings that don't create tearout. There should be no reason I can't take a large panel of cherry (maybe something 15x40) that's been glued up and work both sides, first side to flat and the second one to a thickness line. It has proven hugely useful for that, and ultimately universally useful for everything but the coarsest of work (where you should be planing with or across the grain, anyway).

[Chris Griggs]

So much of what we are subjected to on forums is pure BS, but too many readers don't have the experience to know it when they smell... err... read it. There's an old phrase, something, something from Shinola that applies to a lot of questions.

I think a lot of what happens on forums is the blind leading the blind. After a while you stop starting every post with "I'm no expert but..." and if you're posting a lot I think a lot of people just assume you know what your talking about. As I became a frequent poster here, I started to see things I would say would influence someone else, and while one novice can certainly learn something from another novice and while I think I have some worthwhile experience to share, I definitely have times where I realize that my fairly limited experience could very well come off as tried and true advice.

Again, I think one novice can certainly give another novice great advice - sometimes someone who most recently struggled to learn something is a better teacher than someone who mastered it years ago. That said, having realized that I've been posting here a while not and post fairly often, I've been trying to make a point to caveat my level knowledge again, in case there are folks out there who come here for the first time and think that 1,500 posts someone equates to having completed 1,500 projects. Obviously it doesn't, but I think that's something that's easy to overlook when you are new the the forum circuit.

[george wilson]

I didn't say CS claimed the info as his own,but I'd liked to have had it known that David brought this up months ago,before everyone forgets. It was a memorable thread,and useful info was learned. Speaking of credit, in a Pop Woodworking article,it was said that the blacksmith shop made the plane irons for the planes in Wmsbg. shops,but "other artisans" made the wooden bodies. It was explained to me that there wasn't space to say "the toolmakers. Well,there are 13 letters and one space in each name,and most of the work in making solid(mortised out) planes is in the wooden parts.

I'd like to have credit given,too. After all,those many dozens of planes didn't hop onto the 16' bench. If you spent months making a few of these batches of planes,wouldn't you want credit too if mentioned in a magazine?



Sorry for the sideways picture. I don't feel like going way back and rotating it.

[Chris Griggs]

Yeah, he certainly did not claim to invent it. I hope it didn't seem like I was implying that either. Like George, I just hope everyone reads Dave's article over on that other forum (is it on Woodcentral?). Who knows, maybe CS hasn't even seen that article. He might have just noticed that people were talking about this on the forums and decided to start messing with it again himself. Either way, if he does see the article I think it would be very cool of him to post a link on his blog.

[David Weaver]

It's woodcentral. I doubt too many people have seen it. I think it's a TOS violation to link it directly, and besides, it's a bit dry for someone who isn't intending to use it to apply the cap iron. Anyone can find it on google by searching "setting a cap iron".

I learned that any article is a collaborative effort by writing that, and though I wrote the article, I wanted to make sure that we start out crediting Bill and Steve for actually digging up scientific proof for something we argued about for so long. Ellis will want to kill me for saying this, but I regret that I didn't take the pictures, I couldn't get good ones and I was too lazy to try. (ellis wouldn't kill anyone, he's a nice guy). We had discussions to extreme minutiae, all the way down to whether or not showing still a little bit of tearout in the second picture was OK. I shoot for none, but even if someone else shoots for a big reduction, I guess that's OK.

To describe the benefits, though, ellis had only played a little bit with a cap iron and got that much improvement right away. I don't know how much he normally hand planes. He is excellent with editing something like that and pointing out how it should read so that it can be understood.

[David Weaver]

. After all,those many dozens of planes .

Man, I'd love to have some of those.

[Chris Griggs]

Man, I'd love to have some of those.

Heck, I'd be happy just to get some wood blanks that nice!

[george wilson]

We worked out in the coldest time of year for 2 weeks,cutting down beech trees,and sawing 5000 bd. ft. of beech for the toolmaking program. Then,we hauled it all up into a tall attic space to dry for some years before we could use it. That's what "other artisans" have to do.:)

[Zach Dillinger]

Man, I'd love to have some of those.

Me too. I'd use the heck out of them!

[david charlesworth]

This chipbreaker information is quite the most exciting thing I have learned in a forty year career. I am quite clear that it was not common knowledge in England and I don't recall seeing it in the whole of Fine Woodworking.

My advice and practice was to set the C/B close for gnarly timbers but not that close!

Learning new stuff is very invigorating.

Best wishes,
David

[Matt McCormick]

Learning new stuff is very invigorating.

Best wishes,
David
And speaking of of YOU being invigorated, I hope you are well sir, and thank you for adding to my skill and knowledge. -matt

[David Weaver]

...

Best wishes,
David

David, considering that your sharpening and hand planing videos were the first things that I ever saw of woodworking, and that the very first edge I ever sharpened was excellently keen because of your methods, it was quite a highlight to see you drop in to the original thread and say "hey, that really works".

In arguing with warren several years ago, I had set the chipbreaker too close (dissatisfying surface quality and difficult to use) and too far away (too much tearout, no change). As you advised close for tough woods, and as I experimented with it even back then....we had no idea just how close we were. Years lost in my case, and planes purchased... whatever I could do to try to avoid sanding and scraping.

I am certain beginners can benefit from learning that very soon after learning it will not be fiddly at all, and at some point if they choose, they can point and shoot even their inexpensive planes at the marking lines in figured woods...and do it without the fear of tearout or overshooting.

[Chris Griggs]

Good to see you around here again Mr. Charlesworth. I remember when he popped up during Dave W's thread last year and after some experimenting declared that it worked. Dave its pretty cool that you were able to teach DC something new.

[george wilson]

Taught me something new also!!:)

[Larry Whitlow]

I'm going to say you guys have forgotten more about hand planes than I probably will ever know. I find this discussion interesting because for at least 20 years, if not longer, my understanding was to set the chip breaker close. A couple of months ago I watched an episode of Woodwright's shop that advised to hold the chip breaker back. I was feeling kind of poorly thinking I had been doing things wrong all these years. Good to hear/read that I wasn't off track.

Thanks for the info and take care.

Larry

[Derek Cohen]

I recall feeling quite disappointed when I read Chris Schwarz' blog that there was no mention of those centrally involved in the discussions (primarily here, at WoodCentral and WoodNet). Indeed, there was a LOT of discussion and video and pictorials, efforts to test different parameters, and opinions one way and the other before CS posted on his blog. I read Chris' posts and enjoy his insights. He has contributed a great deal to the WW community, and readers look up to him. When he did not provide names and more information, the impression left is that these important others were unimportant to the conclusions reached. I do not think that was his intention, but it was taken that way when you read the subsequent postings on a few forums (e.g. "Chip breakers by Chris Schwarz" appeared on WoodNet).

As David (C) states, this was an exciting discovery. Notably, it seems not to have been a discovery for some, who claim it as old hat. I started a thread on the Australian Forum, posting some of the pictorial research I had done (and posted here as well), only to get comments from some "old timers" who were irritated by this, as if it were proof that the world of WW forums was populated by amateurs. This is a reason why I admire David so much - for someone of his stature to come out and openly admit he did not know and that this changed the way he thought, well that is just stupendous. Thank you again David.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Darren Brewster]

As David (C) states, this was an exciting discovery. Notably, it seems not to have been a discovery for some, who claim it as old hat. I started a thread on the Australian Forum, posting some of the pictorial research I had done (and posted here as well), only to get comments from some "old timers" who were irritated by this, as if it were proof that the world of WW forums was populated by amateurs. This is a reason why I admire David so much - for someone of his stature to come out and openly admit he did not know and that this changed the way he thought, well that is just stupendous. Thank you again David.
I have to wonder where all these people were for the hundreds of planing discussions I have read online. I had never seen the chipbreaker recommended as a tool for reducing tearout once. I'm a beginner, and mostly a lurker on forums. I have no doubt about other's knowledge and experience about woodworking and that there are people out there that have been properly using their chipbreakers for decades, but it feel a bit disingenuous that they are all coming out of the woodwork now. I think David's article and the associated research behind it really did do something great for amateurs like me.

[Larry Whitlow]

Well, when it comes to hand planes, I don't know if I am properly using anything and would be the last person to offer advise as I am not qualified. My comment was intended only to thank everyone for this information. I read about holding chip breakers close in something like Woodsmith or Shop Notes and I will admit I don't have the exact issue date. It was just another article about tuning up a hand plane and the chip breaker thing stuck with me. As I said, a TV show that advised to hold the chip breaker back kind of threw me for a loop. There was no intent on my part to take away from the research and findings from David or anyone else here. If I did that, then my comment was poorly worded.

[David Weaver]

There was no intent on my part to take away from the research and findings from David or anyone else here. If I did that, then my comment was poorly worded.

I didn't see it as such. When we first started talking about it, I think I said to Bill that despite nobody speaking up on behalf of warren, we'd probably find a bunch of people who legitimately said "oh yeah, I do that already".

Warren's comment (be able to plane everything straight through with no tearout) was the standard I was looking for, because it suggests you can smooth quickly and keep dimensioned wood flat. I also wanted to be able to do it with a thick shaving (speed also).

I offended a few people initially when I finally had firm thoughts on exactly how to set the cap iron (after the initial excitement of setting it really close all the time wears off). They were offended because I said the same thing warren says when they mentioned that "they know how to use a cap iron, but they go to scraping or a high angle plane when the wood gets difficult". If it's not working, then it's no set up properly.

Derek's comments are the only ones that are likely legitimate with that, because he's working different stuff than we are here, but what we work in the US in general is handled easily by a properly set double iron with or against the grain (just not directly across the grain). But I did offend others, which wasn't my intention. Oh well. What was my intention was to get people to:
1) see the genius of the bailey plane design with the original stock parts. I used to believe a thick iron made a huge difference, and that the chipbreakers available with premium irons were an improvement - the latter are definitely not.
2) to realize that if they had a tight budget, they could use their stock bailey planes for anything that any bench plane can be used for, and in this case, it's as easy or easier to learn it than it is to figure out what premium plane you'd want to have.
3) well.... and to crack the code into something that can be communicated. Warren won a planing competition at WIA, which I thought was a quality competition - against multi-thousand dollar planes. It turned out it was a speed competition, but I didn't find that out until later. It bothered me when I thought I had come up with a perfect idea for a pair of planes to use when the wood's not perfect - single iron infills with tight mouths, one at 55 degrees and one at 45, that I thought warren had beaten the best of those types of planes for quality in a contest...and with a plane that would cost about $30.

Anyway, no offense. It's all part of reality, when you see something that works, you know there will have been someone else (or possibly a lot of people) who figured it out long before you did.

[george wilson]

David,you are aware that in the late 18th.C.,double irons were being made in Philadelphia? Of course,without the adjusting mechanisms,but a perfectly effective chip breaker. From the many old plane irons we have seen in the museum,they were very often ground on the back of the blade to make a steeper cutting angle. I wonder how many craftsmen even back then really understood how to use the chip breaker? Not many,I think,as it was a new invention at the time.

[Larry Whitlow]

Anyway, no offense. It's all part of reality, when you see something that works, you know there will have been someone else (or possibly a lot of people) who figured it out long before you did.


One additional comment that I should have made originally. When I say I was setting the cap iron close, I'm talking about a 64th or maybe even a 32nd. This is not the same. Again, thanks for the info.

Take care.

Larry

[David Barnett]

I am quite clear that it was not common knowledge in England and I don't recall seeing it in the whole of Fine Woodworking.

In the very first issue of Fine Woodworking, Winter 1975, Volume 1, Number 1, in "Hand Planes - The care and making of a misunderstood tool", Timothy E. Ellsworth states:

"The chip breaker should be set back 1/64 to 1/16 inch from the cutting edge of the iron. The closer setting would be used for the very fine shavings on finish work and for hard-to-plane woods. Setting the chip breaker back 1/32 to 1/16 inch would be for rough work and large shavings."

The diagrams on page 23 clearly illustrate a close setting. Given that 1/64" equals sixteen thousandths or .0156 of an inch, it may be rather coarser than the suggested .005" or .006" for the tightest smoother setting, but at any rate, it's ballpark.

[Chris Griggs]

I saw statements here and there similar to that when I got my first hand plane a few years back and was researching/learning how to tune/use it. I think most people had heard of the concept, but until Dave started telling me how to use it and what to look for, I had never once seen any real instruction on what to look for. I recall seeing one writeup on a website where a guy used a loupe to set the CB really close, but the focus was on on how to get it a few thou form the edge away from the edge and not at all on why or what to look for in results. It was just "this is where it needs to be". I remember trying it briefly and then writing it off as esoteric hogwash. Add to that the fact that none of the best known writers were promoting it and I (and I believe many experienced and inexperienced woodworkers) came to view it as a vestigial component left over from early Stanley marketing and cost cutting practices.

When Dave first started talking about this I had been PMing with him about wanting a new smooth plane. He said, "hey, give this a try". I doubted him at first and told him I had tried it and it didn't work, but after maybe 2 or 3 emails to address some trouble shooting over the course of a week I did a 180 on my view of a CB.

I think I was Dave's guinea pig regarding how to convert someone. Right about that time, he started posting about how to use the CB anytime anyone would post about tearout or wanting a new smoother, and me, his little convert, would followup with some comment about how I had seen the light. It was actually pretty funny - Dave literally took every opportunity he could to bring up the concept, and whats really cool is it actually worked! He (and his cronies over at woodcentral) COMPLETELY changed the conversation. Before then, the discussion (in multimedia anyway) was typically whether or not the CB actually did anything. Now the discussion is how, if, and when to make use of the CB - I haven't since seen anyone say "its just an extra useless part to gets in the way" or "it was just a way for Stanley to reduce the amount of steel in there blades" since (both of which I had previously believed).

Hope this doesn't come across as some type of crazy rant - its not meant to. I just think its cool and quite funny how much influence Dave's stubbornness had on the woodworking community at large. I also still get excited every time I see the CB working... thicker shavings, less tearout, no more struggling to close my planes mouth up as tight as possible, no concern about changing grain directions - what not to be excited about?

[David Myers]

I tried this method a few weekends ago on some qswo and was very, very happy with the results. My previous efforts with that species led to purchases of LA jack/smoother and a cabinet scraper.

The question that remains in my mind (in the absence of shop time) is what to do with the stock prep before smoothing. Do this setup mitigate tearout so well that I can ignore any nastiness left by my jack? I know the answer will likely be "it depends" but any personnel observations on this would be appreciated.

[Charlie Stanford]

I tried this method a few weekends ago on some qswo and was very, very happy with the results. My previous efforts with that species led to purchases of LA jack/smoother and a cabinet scraper.

The question that remains in my mind (in the absence of shop time) is what to do with the stock prep before smoothing. Do this setup mitigate tearout so well that I can ignore any nastiness left by my jack? I know the answer will likely be "it depends" but any personnel observations on this would be appreciated.

These uber-fine cap iron setting are for final smoothing raising material that is more tissue than wood shaving. If your jack is leaving behind a lot of junk it would take forever to clean up a board with the settings suggested in the original article.

[David Weaver]

You can use the same method with the jack, if you need to. Just set the chipbreaker a bit farther back so that it's set for the chip size with the jack.

If you have so much camber that the chipbreaker is projected further out than the corners of the iron, it's no problem because the chipbreaker will never protrude below the mouth of the plane, which means that part of the iron would never have gotten into the cut, anyway.

That said, it may be easier to minimize jack tearout by planing downgrain, and start applying the cap iron on the next step, whatever that may be (jointer /try /fore)

[David Weaver]

These uber-fine cap iron setting are for final smoothing raising material that is more tissue than wood shaving. If your jack is leaving behind a lot of junk it would take forever to clean up a board with the settings suggested in the original article.

I suggested in the article that the best general setting is more of a backstop setting, somewhere around 8 thousandths with a 50 degree cap iron face. That setting is more than capable of taking coarse smoother shavings.

The issue here is that you won't go straight to a smoother regardless. A coarser cap iron setting on whatever's between the jack and the smoother is useful, though.

[ian maybury]

It's probably not entirely new, in that my Father who was by no means an expert woodworker but who took some night classes in woodworking in a local technical college here in Ireland back in the 1930/40s showed it to me as a kid trying to set up an old wooden jack plane to cut cleanly. Being shown it is one thing, and realising the significance is another however - the benefit in my case was heavily masked by my futile efforts to create a sharp edge using a worn out old oil stone.

What it very much brings to mind is what's been said several times already - how so much truly practical knowledge gets lost in the noise, and how with repetition myths (which are not necessarily untrue - just not necessarily the whole story) can exclude subtler facts. The same basic issue is all over the place so far as set up of tools and machines is concerned - i've been posting about something similar in respect of jointer set up. As in there tends to be a relatively simple or idealised version of how you set it up - which becomes the dogma and gets repeated by all and sundry. Most of whom have never truly trialled the information to discover its limits.

There's actually potentially a whole additional world of fine tuning/smart moves below the standard/idealised procedures for many machines and tools which is not recognised by the dogma. The basics of jointer set up for example tend to deal with getting the tables coplanar, and the knives at the right height relative to the outfeed table. It becomes clear however when you set your machine up in practice that there's a whole world of little set up moves and operating techniques beyond that that can be used to fine tune straight/concave jointing, and to some degree to overcome some of the effects of less than perfectly flat tables.

This sort of information almost never gets written down - it at best surfaces in the form of a comment by somebody who knows. Which most of us promptly miss the significance of.

It seems to me that there's scope for a whole swathe of books and magazine pieces revisiting tools and machines we're inclined to think we know all about in greater depth - at a truly fact based and expert level. Maybe it's the long awaited antidote to dumbing down in the mags, the return of truly useful content??? Maybe we need a research project to gather this sort of detail information and test it...

Well done guys....

ian

[Derek Cohen]

...... As I said, a TV show that advised to hold the chip breaker back kind of threw me for a loop...

One show - possibly the same one you are referring to - was the Woodright's Shop, and the episode was with Chris Schwarz: http://m.video.pbs.org/video/2172600556/. about 18 minutes in.

The point is that modern teachers - and Chris is definitely one of the influential modern teachers. David Charlesworth is another - pass on their knowledge, which in this modern era may have been developed from experience and readings rather than a formal training with long historical roots. The way a chip breaker can be set for a smoother has been around for a long, long time. The fact that it is not common knowledge is simply that it is not included in modern texts or by latter day teachers. Someone like Chris is a marvellous teacher, but what he/they teaches is not necessarily always in the historical context. I think that Chris, per se, does a lot to add historically correct technique to our knowledge base, but this one he overlooked, and then that was passed on. And so it goes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

Yes, and with all due respect, jamming backsaws repeatedly in cuts,and whamming nice,new Wentzloff rip saws into the floor a few times while sawing vertically seated on a low "sawing bench" can be included in "so it goes":) So can hammering a nail into a tired little noodley(sp?) puddle instead of a proper,straight across the grain clinch,with a point bent down to staple into the wood. And don't use the excuse that filming is hard. I made a harpsichord and violin with my staff on film. The only retakes were when a "hair got caught in the gate"(of the camera). And,we were in a terrible,crushing rush to get it done in the Winter months,when it was quiet. I was only 33.:):):)

[Charlie Stanford]

Yes, and with all due respect, jamming backsaws repeatedly in cuts,and whamming nice,new Wentzloff rip saws into the floor a few times while sawing vertically seated on a low "sawing bench" can be included in "so it goes":) So can hammering a nail into a tired little noodley(sp?) puddle instead of a proper,straight across the grain clinch,with a point bent down to staple into the wood. And don't use the excuse that filming is hard. I made a harpsichord and violin with my staff on film. The only retakes were when a "hair got caught in the gate"(of the camera). And,we were in a terrible,crushing rush to get it done in the Winter months,when it was quiet.:):):)

I'm glad you mentioned all of this. That "clinching" job of which you speak particularly made me cringe. And everybody's woodworking is made better by a too-low sawing bench isn't it? Those bloody things look like a Medieval torture device to me - all stooped over. My back hurts just thinking about it. I doubt the saws themselves appreciate the Close Encounters of the Schwarz Kind with the floor, either.

[Charlie Stanford]

The super-fine settings made for an interesting afternoon's diversion for me. That was about it. They work (no doubt) but the surface has to be really homogenous in the first place, almost to a machine-like standard, I rarely achieve that to be honest.

I definitely do not go through a tedious progression of planes and cap iron settings that culminate in the super-tight settings mentioned in the articles. I wonder who really does, in the "post-Kawai" (sp?) world we now supposedly live in. If the end result of all of this is supposed to look like what you get when you hand plane light machine marks out of stock that has otherwise been competently processed on jointer and planer I can reliably be counted out. If I'm misunderstanding the process then ignorance is bliss.

I'm typically back to around a 64th (I'd guess), as David Barnett mentioned in his post quoting an old FW article. For me, this pretty much is the "close as you can get it" recommendation to be found in several books by British authors (not sure what Charlesworth was looking for, perhaps Hayward providing a specific measurement in thousandths of an inch). Furthermore, I would add "reasonably" after the word "can" as a lousy two cent contribution to the discussion.

Can it be gotten closer? Sure, with some squinting and carrying on. But then that setting might not work as well on one species as it did on another. And then fiddling and faffing about ensue. I don't despise the scraper and I am on speaking terms with garnet sandpaper. 250 years or so ago I guess it would have been brick dust, loose grit of some sort, something lost to history, a shop secret, or nothing. Not worried about it.

[Derek Cohen]

Yes, and with all due respect, jamming backsaws repeatedly in cuts,and whamming nice,new Wentzloff rip saws into the floor a few times while sawing vertically seated on a low "sawing bench" can be included in "so it goes":) So can hammering a nail into a tired little noodley(sp?) puddle instead of a proper,straight across the grain clinch,with a point bent down to staple into the wood. ...

Yes, and that may be an example of learning from a book rather than receiving advice and guidance in a shop setting. The problem is that I wouldn't know any better, and no doubt others would also trust this information - assuming that it is the correct way to use this technique ....

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Charlie Stanford]

Yes, and that may be an example of learning from a book rather than receiving advice and guidance in a shop setting. The problem is that I wouldn't know any better, and no doubt others would also trust this information - assuming that it is the correct way to use this technique ....

Regards from Perth

Derek

Possibly, but the three examples George provided don't even pass the laugh test. How could anybody come to a conclusion that a saw striking the floor is any part of good technique? It probably makes sense when building a saw bench (a back "wracker") to hold the saw to the ground for a moment and consider how high the stool should be to provide clearance at all angles, don't you think?

As to the clenching - all you have to have seen is one medieval British church door (a photo would do fine) to see how a nail should look when the clenching is done. Well, at least.

[Derek Cohen]

I was referring to the clenching, not the sawing - I should have been more specific. How many medieval British church doors have any of us examined to know what to look for? I know I would have no clue at all.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

If I'm misunderstanding the process ...

Yep, it's not that difficult and there's no "tedious progression". I personally use a single iron jack, followed by a double iron jointer or the panel plane set coarse (both have the cap iron so it just straightens out the thickest chips I'd make with it), and the smoother is probably set at two sheets of paper, where it will also straighten out the thickest chip it would have to cut (5 or six thousandths?)

If it takes an extra 10 or 20 seconds to set the cap iron (set once, not constantly reset it), the time spent is easily offset by not having to fart around at glue seams or whatever what the planes, and not having to make extra smoother passes to remove tearout from the jointer / panel plane.

[Charlie Stanford]

Yep, it's not that difficult and there's no "tedious progression". I personally use a single iron jack, followed by a double iron jointer or the panel plane set coarse (both have the cap iron so it just straightens out the thickest chips I'd make with it), and the smoother is probably set at two sheets of paper, where it will also straighten out the thickest chip it would have to cut (5 or six thousandths?)

If it takes an extra 10 or 20 seconds to set the cap iron (set once, not constantly reset it), the time spent is easily offset by not having to fart around at glue seams or whatever what the planes, and not having to make extra smoother passes to remove tearout from the jointer / panel plane.

A jack, then jointer/fore set coarse, then smoother set relatively coarse (two sheets of paper; my right elbow is hurting already) then pop the unit out and reset the capiron (you nailing that just right every time, in every species? Better man than me) and then go at it some more.

This is a tedious progression IMO - three different planes in descending level of coarseness with the third plane used having the chipbreaker/iron relationship reset at the end of the process. Four different settings - Jack coarse, jointer/fore coarse, smoother coarse; smoother reset fine. I frankly can't imagine a more tedious (if not physically exhausting) routine. This must be the Schwarz world we all live in now. Not sure.

I think I'd end up with a whole lot of under-planned-thickness material if I followed your routine. Anybody else planing to a finish line besides me? Please, raise your hand!

Glue seams? Gracious, didn't the jack remove all evidence of those? Not getting your meaning on that - are you speaking of panel glue ups?

This is the blissful ignorance I spoke about. Happy to have it with regard to all of this!

To each his own for sure. But Wow!

[Kees Heiden]

The super-fine settings made for an interesting afternoon's diversion for me. That was about it. They work (no doubt) but the surface has to be really homogenous in the first place, almost to a machine-like standard, I rarely achieve that to be honest.

I definitely do not go through a tedious progression of planes and cap iron settings that culminate in the super-tight settings mentioned in the articles. I wonder who really does, in the "post-Kawai" (sp?) world we now supposedly live in. If the end result of all of this is supposed to look like what you get when you hand plane light machine marks out of stock that has otherwise been competently processed on jointer and planer I can reliably be counted out. If I'm misunderstanding the process then ignorance is bliss.

I'm typically back to around a 64th (I'd guess), as David Barnett mentioned in his post quoting an old FW article. For me, this pretty much is the "close as you can get it" recommendation to be found in several books by British authors (not sure what Charlesworth was looking for, perhaps Hayward providing a specific measurement in thousandths of an inch). Furthermore, I would add "reasonably" after the word "can" as a lousy two cent contribution to the discussion.

Can it be gotten closer? Sure, with some squinting and carrying on. But then that setting might not work as well on one species as it did on another. And then fiddling and faffing about ensue. I don't despise the scraper and I am on speaking terms with garnet sandpaper. 250 years or so ago I guess it would have been brick dust, loose grit of some sort, something lost to history, a shop secret, or nothing. Not worried about it.



I am not entirely sure what you mean with the surface having to be really homogenous. This is especially a great technique for your jointer and tryplane with a somewhat wider setting. You won't probably prevent all tearout, but it's a lot better then moving the capiron out of the way.

In reallity it's not difficult to go down to something 0.2mm (1/128th). Well, as far as I can meassure that. Meassuring isn't needed though. You look at the light reflected and just push the capiron slowly forward until the gleaming line is very small. When planing you can see if the shavings come out nice and straight and if the planing is effective in preventing tearout. Adjust as neccesary. And yes that means a bit of faffing around. There is definitely a learning curve involved, but it's never bad for you to learn something new.

Usually it's not neccessary to go all the way to the finest setting. When the wood is cooperative and doesn't tend to tear out with the usual precautions like planing with the grain and a sharp blade, I will shoot also for something like 1/64th in a smoother. A bit of cumbersome grain will tearout, but not nearly as deep. When you encounter such a spot you can either hit it with a scraper or faff around a bit with the chipbreaker to get a better result.

So, on a rough sawn board you probaly start with a jack across the grain to remove any cup and wind. Then straighten the board up with a tryplane with the capiron around 1/64th or so and shavings a bit thinner then that. That will probably give you an excellent result allready, but you could choose to go after it with a smoothing plane with a 1/128th setting.

[george wilson]

Some one in the first thread David started about chip breakers,suggest holding the blade vertically against a piece if soft wood hard against it,and lowering the chip breaker to meet the wood,then tightening. That would produce a very close to the edge setting (provided your chip breaker didn't slip over the cutting edge).

[Kees Heiden]

Hmm, I see you have allready made up your mind, Charlie.

[David Keller NC]

Yes, and with all due respect, jamming backsaws repeatedly in cuts,and whamming nice,new Wentzloff rip saws into the floor a few times while sawing vertically seated on a low "sawing bench" can be included in "so it goes":) So can hammering a nail into a tired little noodley(sp?) puddle instead of a proper,straight across the grain clinch,with a point bent down to staple into the wood.

Hmm - I suspect that the purpose of Roy's show might need to be re-stated: entertainment. He'd be the first to tell us this. Roy (and Chris) are both excellent, careful craftsman. But Roy's style on his show is quite different; he often plays dumb on a subject that he knows more about than his guest. But if the show was just Roy regurgitating his knowledge, it'd certainly be educational, but awfully boring.

I give Roy a great deal of credit for understanding that. Same with Chris S.

[David Weaver]

A jack, then jointer/fore set coarse, then smoother set relatively coarse (two sheets of paper) then pop the unit out and reset the capiron (you nailing that just right every time, in every species? Better man than me) and then go at it some more.

This is a tedious progression IMO - three different planes in descending level of coarseness with the third plane used having the chipbreaker/iron relationship reset in the midst of the process. Four different settings - Jack coarse, jointer/fore coarse, smoother coarse; smoother reset fine. I frankly can't imagine a more tedious routine. This must be the Schwarz world we all live in now? Not sure.

Glue seams? Gracious, didn't the jack remove all evidence of those? Not getting your meaning on that - are speaking of panel glue ups?

This is the blissful ignorance I spoke about. Happy to have it with regard to all of this!

That summary just makes no sense to me. I set the planes once each time I sharpen them. I haven't had the tearout I had before (my bench is against the wall more or less, i like to be able to plane from the same side), and I doubt you would have any, either. There's no need to reset the smoother. 2 sheets of paper is about 8 thousandths, you're very unlikely to get tearout at that setting, there is no robotic changing of the cap iron every time you change the woods you're working on. What works on cherry works, works on oak, works on curly maple and it shouldn't need to be so close that it bruises pine.

Glue seams, plane glue ups. I'm not talking about leveling the seam, I'm talking about taking a rank cut with a jointer when you're flattening the panel and one board has a little bit of curl or something and the other doesn't. We used to hear all of these explanations about how it was historically correct to worm a small plane all over the place and spot smooth. It may be, but I have no interest in it, and I don't want to throw away wood just because I don't have an ideal seam when I'm at my last two boards for a project.

And I absolutely hate scraping cherry and/or sanding cherry, which is what I use the most. It looks terrible.

[David Weaver]

Hmm, I see you have allready made up your mind, Charlie.

Seems to be the case. Lots of straw scenarios that seem more contrived than genuine.

[Chris Griggs]

Charlie, with respect, I don't understand what you are talking about. Are you referring to glue ups, or boards coming off a thickness plane/jointer?

Dave is talking about going from rough stock to flat and smooth. If you're working from rough stock you generally want three planes to get from rough to flat, to smooth. This isn't just CS's teaching - Read any old text, ask anyone who preps stock from hand. Getting from rough to flat to smooth is far quicker if one uses planes that are set to take shavings as thick as possible for what you wnat to get done. Who said anything about 4 different settings? These planes generally stay setup for that level of coarseness - there is little to no resetting other than maybe a turn of the depth adjuster hear or there. That's the whole point. Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote. Are you suggesting another way to go from rough to ready entirely by hand? Are you starting with S2S stock? I often do and is those cases, I typically skip the coarsest plane. Its just a medium-heavy set jointer followed by a smoother? I don't know know how to say this any other way, but instead of just disparaging other peoples suggestions, how about you add your advice. I mean that - if you have a better way how about you describe it to us.

[george wilson]

The show can be considered entertainment by some,I suppose. But,it is of a technical subject which I am sure has many,many newbies following. I keep taking up their cause. When I was a young teenager in Alaska(pretty void of the kind of instruction I wanted),there was no one to teach me to bend wood for guitar sides. I kept boiling them,and they kept wrinkling when drying. Had I had this show to watch,I'd have sucked up every scrap of learning I could. And,I haven't forgotten those early days of mine. It was uphill all the way. No books yet existed about guitar making. The first I ever saw was a book by A.P. Sharp. I was in college by then. And that builder was not a particularly good guitar maker. Some Italian guy(Marco Rocco,I think). Guitar making in England was sort of in its infancy at that time(about 1956) I saw the book in about 1959 or 60. A friend got it somewhere. I did learn a few very valuable things from the very thin little book,though. It REALLY helped. Just a scrap of knowledge: Bend sides around a hot iron,JUST THAT was SO valuable to me at that time. I'd been building solid bodies for a while to avoid side bending,after wasting a school year of attempts.

Therefore,I always urge writers and other "teachers" to provide proper information. Otherwise,what is such a show really about? Folksy charm and green woodworking? (The folksy charm really HAS worked!!!:) Think about it!! A career of folksy charm!! That would have been much easier than wearing my eyes out on fine detail,for sure.)I also must add that the camera,from 10 feet away,hides a multitude of sins. But,I cannot consider seams so wide that the camera can see them at that distance as great craftsmanship. With all due respect,I won't include what the other craftsmen in Williamsburg thought of these goings on.:) The director liked the free publicity the museum got.

Sorry,neither David or I live in "the Schwarz World". I've been at this when he was kicking the slats out of his crib(actually long before that: My daughter is 45).

[David Weaver]

I haven't been at it that long, but there is a drastic difference in the shows when someone like Peter Ross or Brian Boggs is on vs. Schwarz. Someone has to tell beginners what they're doing, I guess, and our discussions on here might be too esoteric in general. But I want to watch the guys with skill, the ones who inspire me to be able to work with the same accuracy and efficiency.

Everyone wants something different, I guess. I rarely watch roy's show, but I do get to see it online when these discussions come up. I tried to find the nail clinching episode, but couldn't. At the same time, I don't know that I'd want to see it. It does make me curious to watch Roy work with planes and then have chris on. Roy seems to use the planes with more skill and rhythm.

[Chris Griggs]

I tried to find the nail clinching episode, but couldn't.

I think its this one. I was going check now, but for some reason its not loading on my computer at the moment.

http://www.pbs.org/woodwrightsshop/video/3000/3010.html

[george wilson]

I can't get youtube to work,but it was the "Tiny Toolbox" episode. I think I need to upload Adobe flash player,or something. Youtube seems to have changed lately. How about a folksy show on how to use your computer ????!!!!

The way I clinch hand made nails is to tap the point of the nail(after it has been driven through the wood) over into a 90º bend. If I have a lot of them to do,or if the nail was made sloppily,I might keep a pair of pliers at the bench to bend them. Then,I hammer the nail over ,driving the bent tip into the wood. I keep all nails bent parallel to each other. They are unsightly enough as is,without making a mess out of them. I must say,I have an early 18th.C. blanket chest that has both properly and improperly clenched nails in the butterfly hinges. This is a Southern yellow pine chest,made by some back woods guy who was likely half drunk when he made it. Alcohol was the main source of pain relief in the period,and from the huge number of wine bottles found in Williamsburg's soil,it is pretty certain that a lot of work was done under the influence.

[Chris Griggs]

I can't get youtube to work,but it was the "Tiny Toolbox" episode. I think I need to upload Adobe flash player,or something. Youtube seems to have changed lately. How about a folksy show on how to use your computer ????!!!!

Yep that's the one. The link I posted is working for me now.

[george wilson]

Peter Ross knows what he is doing (if he can get a word in edge ways!!:)) Peter was the former Master Blacksmith in the museum,in case someone doesn't know.


His movements are quick,to the point,and exacting. As they said on Monty Python "No beating about the bush,or shilly shallying about" (close as I can recall)!!

[Mel Fulks]

Yeah David, In a group that big there are sure to be some "good ones".

[Adam Petersen]

This is a very interesting conversation to be sure. I consider myself a newby in woodworking and an absolute boot in hand tools. I've only been doing the former about 6 years and the latter about 2. I have a lot to learn yet. My primary source of information is online resources like this one and written materials. I read voraciously into the topics. There are several schools of thought in several areas and sometimes it's hard to decide, on my limited budget and time, which direction to go. I do enjoy the experimentation process though and sometimes think this must have been what things were like when they first started figuring out iron planes and other techniques.
I, too, hope for accurate information but also realize that some folks, like CS, present a lot of information from historical information they study. They also have access to a lot of the masters for information. Like anything though, and history itself is a good example, much of the craft has been handed down by word and only in recent times have things become more of a written word. Sometimes the word gets confused for whatever reason. A lot of times I see Moxon looked at. Much of the interpretations I've read about make sense, but what if Moxon was just an average woodworker with an above average access to the ability to create a book from his time? Who says he was the end all be all of his time. He just happens to have written a book that survived. He could have been the CS of his day with other masters bemoaning his work as that of a person who just regurgitates old information and sometimes off the mark at that.
I appreciate all the work that CS does and the contributions of the experienced folks on these websites very much. I do, however, have the final word on what works for me. I think that's the point, that we must decide what we try and if it works. I think if someone were to put forth too much false info the BS flag would be thrown and they'd be discredited. Some of it does come back to those who can, do and those who can't teach. That's a little harsh but I think you get my point. CS is more of a historian than a WW'er sometimes it seems. He does what he loves though and makes a living doing it. Good for him. I plan to try the chip breaker on my #4 personally. Wish me luck. And thanks to everyone that brought this info to light.

[David Weaver]

Chris does do a good job publishing. I like a lot of his publishing efforts as long as they are books written by someone else. And I don't mean that as a slight, I think it's perfectly fair to say I'd like a book written by an expert and edited/published by someone who is an expert at the latter.

[David Keller NC]

Otherwise,what is such a show really about? Folksy charm and green woodworking? (The folksy charm really HAS worked!!!:) Think about it!! A career of folksy charm!!

Actually, this is exactly how I view Roy's show - folksy charm and green woodworking. A large contrast in WW shows is "The Woodsmith Shop". I watch it, but it's heavily over-produced, and is geared toward a "how-to" from soup-to-nuts, with on-line content available to fill in any blanks. I'd hate to see Roy's show turn into the "how-to" format. And I'd think it would be nearly impossible for him to do anyway, the show's usually only 24 minutes long according to my DVR, and most of us that use handtools at a high level recognize that there's a tremendous amount of detail that is critical to the quality of the object produced that isn't covered, and couldn't be unless each project was spread out over 4 or more shows.



That would have been much easier than wearing my eyes out on fine detail,for sure.)I also must add that the camera,from 10 feet away,hides a multitude of sins. But,I cannot consider seams so wide that the camera can see them at that distance as great craftsmanship.

I doubt Roy would either, but I don't think that's the point. The point is to do a live demonstration in as short a time possible, and he usually has a finished example of whatever project is being discussed that exhibits far higher standards of craftmanship.





Sorry,neither David or I live in "the Schwarz World". I've been at this when he was kicking the slats out of his crib(actually long before that: My daughter is 45).

Well yeah, George, but that's an impossible standard. If the criteria for being a woodworking author was being more experienced than 99% of the rest of the woodworking public, we would never have younger people willing to do the job. I'm -ahem- "more experienced" than a large number of my colleagues in the scientific field, but I don't tell them that their ideas or contributions aren't as good as mine because I'm older and more experienced.

[george wilson]

It is the finished example if a piece of work that HAS the seams I refer to. He always has a finished piece,and spare parts ready to speed up the process. For example,the triangular,small table (Jacobean,IIRC),that has the 3 piece top like pie slices. There are very visible(from 10' away on camera) seams in the top. Obviously,I don't expect someone to produce a perfect piece of work in 24 minutes!!:) That would be silly!

But,I need to lay off this subject before I get myself into trouble. I do challenge anyone to disprove any thing I have said about these things,though.

Older has nothing to do with anything. We had an older Dutch cabinet maker when I first came to the museum. He was not creative in the least. All he made was block front desks which were entirely inappropriate for the Virginia area. He had a cutting list,and would go to the backup shop,and make himself a kit of parts,all dimensioned and planed. He'd bring them to the Anthony Hay cabinet shop,and cut the dovetails by hand,and the shell carvings and moldings. He was about 10% as good as I was,but always was holding the age and experience card over my head!! In his faltering English "These goot for nothing college boys don't know from none!" Well, except for my extracurricular hanging out with Will Reimann,I learned nothing of value to my career as a craftsman in college!!!! Everyone in town had warned me that I'd never manage to work near him,but I had no choice about being in a room connected to the cabinet shop. He was eventually put out in the backup shop to work out his last years where he was not a daily nuisance to others. He had actually gotten into a fist fight with someone some time ago. I don't know how it was that he was not fired,as that was a first time firing offense, Maybe it was off museum property with another museum employee.

One time,he brought to my attention a desk he had made. The writing surface had sharp,clear thickness planer marks all over it. I mean,it was untouched by scraping or sanding. He moaned how he had scraped and sanded that surface,when any fool could see that he had just left it alone by mistake. When the finish went on(a few miserable coats of too thinned out shellac,no stain or filler),the planer marks shone out.

I would NEVER,EVER have left those marks on. It would not have been hard to remove the cubby holes and re do it. But,he actually delivered it in that condition. It was extremely expensive,too. A prime example of getting away with something because of the ignorance of the customer being greater than the carelessness of the craftsman. That sort of thing happened a number of times.

No,I don't use the age and experience angle card like that. You've got to have the goods to back it up,or I don't care how many years you've been at it. I can't even tell how many real old men came into the instrument shop and tried to find something to complain about. I think they were in reality unpleased with their own accomplishments,and tried to tear down what others had done.

[george wilson]

Here's a funny story about the Dutch cabinet maker. He had gone to Richmond with the director ,the assistant director,and the old English furniture conservator,Mr. Sims(who I really liked). They went into a restaurant for lunch. The Dutchman was apoplectic
with the food that was served to him(really pitched a hissy!!!!) and,without warning,or permission,shoveled his food onto the plate of Mr. Sims!!

He also had a basic spelling problem,and had a stack of mahogany in the maintenance area,which he labeled "English keep hands OF". I don't know if he hated the Nazis(who forced him to make wooden propellers),or the English more.:) Not funny,really. Mr. Sims was a good man. Always generous and very helpful. He brought me back a set of hollows and rounds from England for $75.00,and a VERY nice post vise. I'm sure it was 18th.C.. Someone I loaned it to was fired and SOLD it when he left town to work as a union rep.. On one of his shows,Roy showed Mr. Sims's old tool chest.His son had inherited it. When I knew Mr. Sims,his chisels were quite long. When Roy showed them,they were 3 or 4" long. His son was a real hippie,and a hack,and had ground them to death. His mother said to him: "There's nothing more disgusting than an aging hippie". Mr. Sims agreed!!

[Jason Coen]

Peter Ross knows what he is doing (if he can get a word in edge ways!!:)) Peter was the former Master Blacksmith in the museum,in case someone doesn't know.


His movements are quick,to the point,and exacting. As they said on Monty Python "No beating about the bush,or shilly shallying about" (close as I can recall)!!

It might be said of Pete(r) that he does not waste a movement nor a word. And that's about the highest praise I can give someone.

[george wilson]

Well,he CAN'T waste a word in that show. They are too hard to get in!!:)

[Jason Coen]

On one of his shows,Roy showed Mr. Sims's old tool chest.His son had inherited it. When I knew Mr. Sims,his chisels were quite long. When Roy showed them,they were 3 or 4" long. His son was a real hippie,and a hack,and had ground them to death. His mother said to him: "There's nothing more disgusting than an aging hippie". Mr. Sims agreed!!

I've seen that chest and have used several of the tools in it. Just from examining and handling the tools it was apparent Mr. Simms had the eye and heart of a craftsman. There's a great story about how Roy came to acquire it. From what I was told it sounds like George's description of the son is spot-on.

[Charlie Stanford]

Charlie, with respect, I don't understand what you are talking about. Are you referring to glue ups, or boards coming off a thickness plane/jointer?

Dave is talking about going from rough stock to flat and smooth. If you're working from rough stock you generally want three planes to get from rough to flat, to smooth. This isn't just CS's teaching - Read any old text, ask anyone who preps stock from hand. Getting from rough to flat to smooth is far quicker if one uses planes that are set to take shavings as thick as possible for what you wnat to get done. Who said anything about 4 different settings? These planes generally stay setup for that level of coarseness - there is little to no resetting other than maybe a turn of the depth adjuster hear or there. That's the whole point. Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote. Are you suggesting another way to go from rough to ready entirely by hand? Are you starting with S2S stock? I often do and is those cases, I typically skip the coarsest plane. Its just a medium-heavy set jointer followed by a smoother? I don't know know how to say this any other way, but instead of just disparaging other peoples suggestions, how about you add your advice. I mean that - if you have a better way how about you describe it to us.

I rarely use even skip planed material.

I need to see you guys on video doing this gyration down to planned thickness. I'm guessing, purely guessing, that if you needed a 7/8" thick board or something very close, several of you would be sweating bullets if you had to start with slightly fat 4/4 rough stock.

Two planes - jointer or fore and then the smoother. Only thing changing would be cutter projection - turn of the thumb. If I'm getting out a short board then I'd use a jack.

I get the stock flat first (a geometric concept) and then as smooth and clear (surface attributes) as it can be gotten in the room I have left to my planned thickness (depending on what part is being produced). If thickness can be variable, and I need to, I keep planing for appearance.

On tabletops for instance I worry about twist removal and general flattening only on the side that will register to the aprons. I let everything else run out to the show side - a little out of shape won't usually be terribly noticeable. Trying to register the twisted side to the apron would pull the undercarriage into twist potentially causing lots of problems. I would plane and treat that show surface for appearance and not geometry.

I know of no other way to do it without wasting material or starting with thicker stock than is really necessary which, again, is wasteful.

I'M HAPPY TO BE ENLIGHTENED ON THIS, SO PLEASE DO!

Cheers!

[Mel Fulks]

Roy is deferential to his guests,seems strange on television ,but good manners anyway.

[george wilson]

Charlie,they hand plane their wood in the Anthony Hay cabinet shop every day. Unlike in the distant past,when things were much more relaxed about authenticity,their furniture is completely hand made.

Jason,I had to put up with Mr. Sim's son for several months when the director was asked by a vice president to give him a "second chance" after he was fired. It was nearly a nightmare trying to keep him right. He'd be found wearing a costume with red sneakers,hanging from an overhead shelf while interpreting to visitors,wearing incredibly wrinkled shirts because he didn't know to take them out of the dryer hot and hang them. It went on WAY to long. He had REALLY pornographic books in the break room I had to order him to take home. He simply could not understand why. We had women ticket takers going up there. Although I reported many of his antics,the director was afraid to fire him because a vice president had asked him to hire the guy. Finally,he said the wrong thing to a group led by a friend of the president(of the museum). He was ordered instantly fired. I could not be in 2 shops at once,and this guy required constant supervision. He made a stand up desk out of pine,that was so badly made that the trade shop it was made for refused to accept it.

[David Weaver]

Charlie, you're always demanding other people to show something, but you never show anything of yours. Why don't you start a post showing something or write an article?

[Chris Griggs]

Charlie it seems that what you are describing is no different than what anyone else is doing, but that you are just using a the same plane for your coarsest work and your somewhat less coarse flattening. Certainly a perfectly valid approach, I believe Alan Peters used one plane, a No. 7, for just about everything.

I'm not sure what you mean by crazy gyration. Its one additional plane setup to take heavier shavings than a jointer. Its also currently and historically a very standard practice. Its has a narrower blade so its easier to push, and its lighter. The whole reason to use say a jack first is to avoid the sweating bullets. If I need to get a thick 4/4 board down to 7/8, I'll use the jack to get it closer first. This also makes it quicker to remove worst of any cupping or twisting. If I've already flattened one side and have 1/8-1/4 of inch to take off the other to bring it to thickness, I'm going to get as close to the gauge line as I can safely with my coarsest tool. I'm not sure how its easier to do that with a heavier plane, I personally have no desire to remove a 1/4" of material with an 8 to 10 pound plane. Don't assume that this means I or anyone else is just blindly going to town on a bored with the coarsest plane possible, you plane as much is as necessary, and obviously leave enough so that you can get the piece truly flat with the jointer and not overshoot the line. If the board is flat enough or close enough to the line that it doesn't need the coareley set plane be it a jack or fore plane than that plane doesn't get used. I don't imagine anyone regularly preps stock by hand is planing away material or wasting time and energy just to go through a sequence of planing.

As far as the CB is concerned. You seem to be assuming that this something that is adjusted every time the thickness of cut it adjusted. The reality is experience tells you where it works best for ones work the majority of the time and that's where it stays. It is one aspect of plane setup that can help to get a good end result. Much like setting the mouth of a plane you find the spot where it works best for the majority of your work and leave it that way the vast a majority of the time.

If your 2 plane approach works for you that's great. I'm not going to say it doesn't or belittle it in any way, but that doesn't mean that other peoples approaches are less valid. If you really feel like your approach is objectively better, than by all means feel free to post a video or your process. I'll happily watch it and see if I can learn something from it.

[Chris Griggs]

Spent some time prepping some birdseye today for a smallbox. This stuff is supposed to be really difficult to smooth w/o tearout right? Wait, you need a high end plane with a high bed/angle of attack to plane this stuff right? Wait, you need a crazy tight plane mouth right? Wait, you can only take .001" thick or less shavings when planing this stuff right? Wrong!

248110 248111

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE my nice new planes.... but I also love that my old Stanley (a type 18 or 19 so not even the best of them) can do anything I ever need a smooth plane to do. No the shavings included in the shot are not to show off how thin they are.... its just the opposite.

THANK YOU MR. WEAVER!

[Sean Richards]

Spent some time prepping some birdseye today for a smallbox. This stuff is supposed to be really difficult to smooth w/o tearout right? Wait, you need a high end plane with a high bed/angle of attack to plane this stuff right? Wait, you need a crazy tight plane mouth right? Wait, you can only take .001" thick or less shavings when planing this stuff right? Wrong!


Chris - who told you that you need a high end plane (whatever that is) with a high bed angle, crazy tight mouth and you can only take 0.001" shavings?

[Chris Griggs]

No one specifically. Its just one of those things that comes up from time to time. Someone will post about having issues with tearout in some type of curly/figured north american hardwood, and the general advice is usually, tighten the mouth, raise the angle of attack, take a thinner shaving. Its also the advice you read in every woodworking magazine and most blogs. (just type "planing curly maple" or "planing birdseye" or "tearout problems" into the search function and you'll find dozens of such threads - though you'll have to weed out the ones talking about power planers)

Of course, all these things work, but I remember being a newbie and reading a bunch of things that said those types of things, and thinking that I needed something other than a standard bailey to work figured wood. I quickly learned that I could work figured wood with a standard bailey, but learning to use the CB has allowed me to not worry about having as tight a mouth or taking the thinnest shaving possible. Actually, what I really believe is that an especially sharp blade is the most important factor in working semi difficult woods, but using the CB as definitely changed the way I think about and do things.

I do by the way recognize that curly maple, birdeye, curly cherry, etc. is not that difficult to plane compared to truly gnarly woods (which I don't work with anyway), but tearout problems with it do come up a fair bit on the forums.

[Kees Heiden]

From Chris Schwarz website:

"OK, actually I just gave myself an early Christmas gift and deleted my web browser’s links to a couple woodworking forums."

I guess this thread has something to do with this. Last drop in the bucket kind of thing. And I think that's a shame. There is no reason to belittle other people, whoever they are. Roy and Chris are fun characters. Probably not the end all and be all of woodworking lore, but nice guys nonetheless an very entertaining.

[Steve Branam]

Just like to say thanks for bringing this up again. I followed some of this information previously, but then got distracted and forgot about it. I'm glad to see it brought back to the fore. These are indeed the subtleties of experience that quickly get lost in the noise. I need to go back and read it all again closely. Thanks George and David! Don't stop.

It's also worth noting that there are often opportunities online for miscommunication, misinterpretation, and omissions, whether deliberate or inadvertent. The forum provides a feedback loop where those can be cleared up if done in a civil manner. Sometimes it takes a few cycles of people asking "Is this what you mean?" and patient replies to get it sorted out. It's easy for good information to get buried in the confusion, but persistence helps keep it available for the rest of us to rediscover.

[Chris Griggs]

From Chris Schwarz website:

"OK, actually I just gave myself an early Christmas gift and deleted my web browser’s links to a couple woodworking forums."

I guess this thread has something to do with this. Last drop in the bucket kind of thing. And I think that's a shame. There is no reason to belittle other people, whoever they are. Roy and Chris are fun characters. Probably not the end all and be all of woodworking lore, but nice guys nonetheless an very entertaining.



Probably a good idea. Someone who is as public a figure as he is and has so many followers is going to have an equally large number of critics. It's just the nature of putting yourself out there to such an extent. Honestly, if I were in his shoes I would probably do the same if not all the time at least periodically. For whatever, reason there has been a fair bit of criticism on the forums lately.

I'll say again that I really like what he puts out there. He may not be a master woodworker, but he certainly puts a lot of great information out there (sometimes his own sometime historical). I guess I think of him as sorta and expert hobbyist, in that he seems to have a lot of expertise about what is practical and what is impractical for hobbyist woodworkers. He's certainly a far far more accomplished and knowledgeable woodworker than me. I do agree that a lot of his stuff is directed at total beginners, but I think a lot of it is also just sorta basic advice/tips that could be helpful to woodworkers of many levels. I can say that I've gotten tons from reading his blog over the past few years, and probably wouldn't have had any idea of where to start when I got into hand tools if his writings weren't so available. I don't follow any single person as the end all be all expert, but I don't shut out good information when its there either. Though I don't follow his stuff the way I did when I first started and know that there have been times when I didn't fully agree with something he suggested, off the top of my head I can't think of anything specific that I tried as a result of his advice that didn't somehow improve my woodworking. Raise you hand if your workbench is inspired in part or on whole by a design that he brought to your attention (both my hands are raised right now).

The fact that he didn't espouse the use of the CB until recently doesn't make me think less of him (though perhaps it came across that way) - its become clear that lots of serious woodworkers weren't really familiar with how to set a CB. Again, I just thought a direct reference to the guys (Dave et al) who were really pushing the issue would have been cool. I'm, btw, not implying that he was somehow trying steal credit form anyone - my assumption is he read some discussions on it, watched the video, did some experiment for himself and then reported out what he thought. From his perspective, there probably wasn't anything to specific to sight other than the video. When I say a reference to those guys would have been cool, I mean exactly that.... it would have been cool to see, simply because those are the fella's who I credit with finding a way to really teach/explain to people how to set a CB properly.

I'm actually a little surprised that he got pissed enough about a bunch of forum discussions to make a point of posting a blog article saying that he was deleting them from his browser. Honestly, he's been in publishing long enough that I would not have thought he gave a crud about what most of us think. Kinda makes me want to search all of last weeks threads on this forum and others and try to figure out what the nail in teh coffin was.

[Charlie Stanford]

I am not entirely sure what you mean with the surface having to be really homogenous. This is especially a great technique for your jointer and tryplane with a somewhat wider setting. You won't probably prevent all tearout, but it's a lot better then moving the capiron out of the way.

In reallity it's not difficult to go down to something 0.2mm (1/128th). Well, as far as I can meassure that. Meassuring isn't needed though. You look at the light reflected and just push the capiron slowly forward until the gleaming line is very small. When planing you can see if the shavings come out nice and straight and if the planing is effective in preventing tearout. Adjust as neccesary. And yes that means a bit of faffing around. There is definitely a learning curve involved, but it's never bad for you to learn something new.

Usually it's not neccessary to go all the way to the finest setting. When the wood is cooperative and doesn't tend to tear out with the usual precautions like planing with the grain and a sharp blade, I will shoot also for something like 1/64th in a smoother. A bit of cumbersome grain will tearout, but not nearly as deep. When you encounter such a spot you can either hit it with a scraper or faff around a bit with the chipbreaker to get a better result.

So, on a rough sawn board you probaly start with a jack across the grain to remove any cup and wind. Then straighten the board up with a tryplane with the capiron around 1/64th or so and shavings a bit thinner then that. That will probably give you an excellent result allready, but you could choose to go after it with a smoothing plane with a 1/128th setting.

I flatten and rectify (1) and bring to desired thickness (2) whilst simultaneously shooting for a surface quality that pleases me (3) given the constraints of (1) and (2). I know of no other way it can be done or any other viable sequence. To the extent that there is wriggle room on (1) and/or (2) then obviously one can spend more time on (3) if it's necessary. To be perfectly honest and forthright, a 9" smoother in my hands is often still removing a hillock here and there, and bridging the occassional dip and swale, not continuously cutting the full length/breadth of board or panel at all times and in all places. If your very finely set smoother does then kudos! That's a testament to flatness and surface uniformity! If this more often than not coalesces for you at the moment you reach your planned stock thickness then that's terrific. I'll not argue with that sort of obvious success. To me this would practically be an embarrassment of riches.

Happily, and possibly something some would consider as a retreat to a fall back position, I do know how to raise a cob-webby shaving the full length of a hand scraper blade. It's an essentially unmeasurable shaving (in thickness) that would almost melt (poetic license requested) in a sweaty hand. I've never seen a handplane produce anything close, certainly not as wide, an obvious physical impossibility; and a lot of people make a shaving with a scraper only an inch or so wide, hence the zebra-striped surface - in certain circumstances more harm than good. That said, I don't scrape and scrape either and some tearout or other sundry markings and artifacts on furniture are fine by me; read the late, great Gene Landon on the subject. I wouldn't, and don't, hesitate to use sandpaper on a block for some unruly patches than don't respond well to plane or scraper, or are up against some other part making planing and scraping not particularly viable, unnecessarily risky, or just plain awkward.

In my shop wood moves, and stock can arrive from suppliers a little less flat than I would have preferred. I sense your stock is better behaved and perhaps your shop has better climatic control than mine. This obviously speaks to the relative degree of *particularly* constraint (1) in my first paragraph.

I have no facility for measurements by eye (or any other method) other than 'weak 32nd,' 'glint of light,' 'smidgen,' etc. I am unable to assert with any surety at all anything like "1/128" of an inch and that sort of measurement, or even an estimate of that sort of measurement, is at the end of the day meaningless to me and the way I prefer to approach my work.

[Josh Rudolph]

Probably a good idea. Someone who is as public a figure as he is and has so many followers is going to have an equally large number of critics. It's just the nature of putting yourself out there to such an extent. Honestly, if I were in his shoes I would probably do the same if not all the time at least periodically. For whatever, reason there has been a fair bit of criticism on the forums lately.

I'll say again that I really like what he puts out there. He may not be a master woodworker, but he certainly puts a lot of great information out there (sometimes his own sometime historical). I guess I think of him as sorta and expert hobbyist, in that he seems to have a lot of expertise about what is practical and what is impractical for hobbyist woodworkers. He's certainly a far far more accomplished and knowledgeable woodworker than me. I do agree that a lot of his stuff is directed at total beginners, but I think a lot of it is also just sorta basic advice/tips that could be helpful to woodworkers of many levels. I can say that I've gotten tons from reading his blog over the past few years, and probably wouldn't have had any idea of where to start when I got into hand tools if his writings weren't so available. I don't follow any single person as the end all be all expert, but I don't shut out good information when its there either. Though I don't follow his stuff the way I did when I first started and know that there have been times when I didn't fully agree with something he suggested, off the top of my head I can't think of anything specific that I tried as a result of his advice that didn't somehow improve my woodworking. Raise you hand if your workbench is inspired in part or on whole by a design that he brought to your attention (both my hands are raised right now).

I agree. I have learned a great deal of things from him in his books and magazine articles. I appreciate his ability to convey an idea or concept without running off on tangents and keeping things simple.



I'm actually a little surprised that he got pissed enough about a bunch of forum discussions to make a point of posting a blog article saying that he was deleting them from his browser. Honestly, he's been in publishing long enough that I would not have thought he gave a crud about what most of us think. Kinda makes me want to search all of last weeks threads on this forum and others and try to figure out what the nail in teh coffin was.

I am not surprised. There has been some pretty critical talk about him that has done nothing for woodworking, it only served as a means of belittling him.

I have learned a ton of stuff about woodworking here, it is an extremely valuable asset to me. I appreciate the wealth of knowledge that is here and can only dream of producing some of the things I have seen on this forum. However, the way some of these past discussions have been going, I have been quite turned off by what has been going on lately and I have lost respect for some people.

As I have said before, I was raised and I truly believe that "You can learn something, from anyone."

I will continue to be a fan of CS. He has helped thousands with his work including me.

[David Weaver]

. I'm, btw, not implying that he was somehow trying steal credit form anyone - my assumption is he read some discussions on it, watched the video, did some experiment for himself and then reported out what he thought.

I agree, it wasn't Chris saying "look, I've been figuring some things out lately, it was the attribution of other people implying that specifics like that are discovered because of his tinkering. Very few people have any idea who Bill Tindall and Steve Elliot are unless they post on woodcentral, and even then you might not know who that would be. Steve did specific scientific or semiscientific work describing all of the whiz bang alloys quite some time ago. I don't know if Bill worked with him on that or not.

Steve and Bill did the great work to dig up not only the video, but to correspond with people who don't speak English to dig up the technical information that went along with it as well as a hand tool specific instruction, which turned out to be hard to translate.

Without the video and the paper stuff, I could still be following every thread telling people with the "what plane should I buy next" question that they just need to learn something instead, but that always offends. Not that it bothers me that much, as a professor in my college major said "learning is painful". At any rate, a lot of the very specific information in the last 5 years has come from forums and forum members, out of the ground rather than across the press wire.

Maybe Chris saying that he's deleting the forums from his bookmarks will lead more people here to participate in the discussion. Maybe not, but I can't think of anything negative about the chance that it does.

[David Weaver]

There has been some pretty critical talk about him that has done nothing for woodworking..

Actually, if it makes him a little more cautious and points him more toward publishing and finding experts to provide the information, that wouldn't be negative at all. It doesn't seem to have had that effect, though.

[Kees Heiden]

Charlie,

Just to be sure, I think we are in complete agreement here!

Two things. I only meassured the distance of the chipbreaker to the edge twice. Just to get an idea what I was looking for. Because I was allready playing with the chipbreaker for some time before I saw the video, without too much succes, I needed that meassurement to finally come into the ballpark. After that I knew what I was looking for. Indeed, a glint of light. On a jointer a bit more, on a smoother a bit less. Another good way of recognising when you are right is looking at the shaving. When it stretches out, you probably have the chipbreaker in the right spot.

The other thing. This playing around with the chipbreaker is NOT about fluffy shavings. Au contraire. It helps you to take thicker shavings without introducing tearout. That's the whole point of using the chipbreaker.

[Chris Griggs]

I have no facility for measurements by eye (or any other method) other than 'weak 32nd,' 'glint of light,' 'smidgen,' etc. I am unable to assert with any surety at all anything like "1/128" of an inch and that sort of measurement, or even an estimate of that sort of measurement, is at the end of the day meaningless to me and the way I prefer to approach my work.

I wish more people would measure things this way when it comes to plane setup. I always get confused when folks would talk about thickness and distance in terms of thousandths of inches. Pieces of paper (standard copy/printer paper) is about as accurate as I get when it comes to such things. For setting chipbreakers I'd say that on a smoothing plane it is good to set it just a smidgen further from the edge than a glint of light :)

[jamie shard]

For setting chipbreakers I'd say that on a smoothing plane it is good to set it just a smidgen further from the edge than a glint of light :)

That I understand! :)

[george wilson]

As far as to what I have had to say,I challenge anyone to disprove it.

My purpose here was to see that credit is given to David,who started the chip breaker conversation,enlightening many of us. I felt denied credit,too,after making all those planes. No reason to say "other artisans" when "the toolmakers" is exactly the same number of letters. Just why was that? If wanting credit for David offends anyone,I'm sorry. like David's professor(and one of mine also said)"Learning is painful."

You'd better be a member of "the clique" if you want to be included. That is "why".

Josh,if you do not know some of these "woodworking personalities",you may not know what is going on behind the scenes. Do not be quick to judge. I've been there,done that,when I was less informed.

[David Weaver]

Charlie,

Just to be sure, I think we are in complete agreement here!

Two things. I only meassured the distance of the chipbreaker to the edge twice.

I never did, you can infer how close it is based on what happens to a thickness of shaving, I guess, but the actual numbers that come out of the video are for ballparking. (so that someone who was using 1/32nd of an inch realizes why that setting doesn't do anything other than help keep shavings from residing in the plane indefinitel). I was too afraid that I would tap a ruler on a sharp edge and have a ding in it. I did put a caliper on thick shavings, though. certainly stepped up the thickness of my smoother shavings to about twice what they were before I used a cap iron effectively.


It helps you to take thicker shavings without introducing tearout. That's the whole point of using the chipbreaker.

Exactly.

[Kees Heiden]

No you were right about that one George. But then it went on and on about the quality of his work and how he handles a saw and all that. Same about Roy's work. Looking back, I think that wasn't neccessary.

[george wilson]

Sorry,I guess I imagined those things? I must be getting senile!!:)

I think if you are going to put yourself forth as an instructor,instruct the correct way. Why is that wrong? I'm not letting anyone jam my saws into the floor,or possibly kink my backsaws from jamming them. Is there something wrong with proper instruction?????

There are some here who seem to agree with me. I spent years as a teacher,both in schools and in Williamsburg,doing demonstrations. I felt a duty and an obligation to do things correctly. Is that out the window too?

[David Weaver]

I'm not saying this to point to george or say "anything goes", but I do think it's good for things like that to be pointed out by someone like george from time to time. IF we could get more specific information out of Charlie from time to time, that might be helpful, too. Presume Charlie's point of view is fairly well calibrated because he's getting paid to do at least some of the work he does. We know george got/gets paid for his.

As amateurs, if george says we should strive to not bind our saws, then we should. I couldn't have told you a peep about clinching nails, but now we know more. Sometimes there's something to be learned from criticism.

A while ago (here's one for you Adam) when I first started handsawing, I was cutting fairly far away from the line and planing to it. Adam Cherubini said something along the lines of "you have to get to the point that you can saw on the line where it's appropriate to do that and not shoot every end". That was, to me, a helpful comment. It's not hard to ride the line on work, it's not hard to not bind saws, it's probably not hard to clinch nails in a professional looking way, but you have to know to do it.

Most of the time we don't, we're too busy patting each other on the back about our mediocre work. The first saw I made, george was the only person who offered advice for me to improve. It forced me to change the way I look at execution, I don't need to make anything, I could buy it all and dump woodworking entirely. Everyone has different priorities, some people like to make a lot and make it fast, some people like to make something exactly like period with tool marks to match. I like to make fewer things and try to make them something that I will not look back on and say "I did an amateurish job with that". My second and third saws were a lot better for george's commentary. Hopefully my fourth one will be, too. Indirectly, all of us who put together kits at the same time benefited from it, even though it would've been easy to call criticism and suggestion out of bounds.

Threads like this make us think. Some of us will conclude that the way Chris does stuff is fine, some of us will conclude that we'd like to know enough to know why george has a different opinion. At least we're thinking about it, though.

[Chris Griggs]

I'm not saying this to point to george or say "anything goes", but I do think it's good for things like that to be pointed out by someone like george from time to time. IF we could get more specific information out of Charlie from time to time, that might be helpful, too. Presume Charlie's point of view is fairly well calibrated because he's getting paid to do at least some of the work he does. We know george got/gets paid for his.

As amateurs, if george says we should strive to not bind our saws, then we should. I couldn't have told you a peep about clinching nails, but now we know more. Sometimes there's something to be learned from criticism.

A while ago (here's one for you Adam) when I first started handsawing, I was cutting fairly far away from the line and planing to it. Adam Cherubini said something along the lines of "you have to get to the point that you can saw on the line where it's appropriate to do that and not shoot every end". That was, to me, a helpful comment. It's not hard to ride the line on work, it's not hard to not bind saws, it's probably not hard to clinch nails in a professional looking way, but you have to know to do it.

Most of the time we don't, we're too busy patting each other on the back about our mediocre work. The first saw I made, george was the only person who offered advice for me to improve. It forced me to change the way I look at execution, I don't need to make anything, I could buy it all and dump woodworking entirely. Everyone has different priorities, some people like to make a lot and make it fast, some people like to make something exactly like period with tool marks to match. I like to make fewer things and try to make them something that I will not look back on and say "I did an amateurish job with that". My second and third saws were a lot better for george's commentary. Hopefully my fourth one will be, too. Indirectly, all of us who put together kits at the same time benefited from it, even though it would've been easy to call criticism and suggestion out of bounds.

Threads like this make us think. Some of us will conclude that the way Chris does stuff is fine, some of us will conclude that we'd like to know enough to know why george has a different opinion. At least we're thinking about it, though.

Very well said Dave. To your last point. I actually conclude both. I think CS does what he does and I think its good and fine, but I'd also like to know enough to know why George might have a different opinion. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I always appreciate the fact that George is willing to offer criticism when I post work. Its one of the main reasons I keep posting it (that and I like getting a pat on the back from everyone else for my mediocre efforts as well). I probably just sound like a big wishy washy nincompoop, maybe I am. What can I say... I've learned a lot from Chris Schwarz, I've learned an equal amount from David Weaver, and I've learned things from George that no one else I ever meet would have likely have the eye or experience to teach me. I'm grateful for all of it.

[george wilson]

Maybe I get too carried away,I don't know. What I do think is true is there are right ways to use tools and wrong ways. It should not be difficult to see that whamming a saw into the floor,or binding it is none of the above. Really,is it correct? Too complicated?

I may have trodden on some toes here. I know there certainly is a degree of "hero worship"(or whatever it might be called) in play here. All I ask is simply this: If you are going to set yourself up as a guru,you'd best BE that guru. I know I can be harsh,and do not always come across in the best way( I know this because my wife tells me so every day!) But,I try to do my work and use my tools properly,at least. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. All the rest is talk. I'm sure we ingest 98% misleading advertising,hype,and nonsense every day. Try to hang onto that 2% of truth.

[Phillip Dejardin]

I'm actually a little surprised that he got pissed enough about a bunch of forum discussions to make a point of posting a blog article saying that he was deleting them from his browser.
I'm actually surprised that he frequents woodworking forums at all given the unfortunate example of this thread. Perhaps the woodworking "community" thinks of people like Chris, Roy, Norm, Tommy, et al, like other public celebrities and, therefore, open to the same kind of unrestrained comment on their person. Yes, they are in the public eye in a way that nearly all forum participants are not, and for some people that apparently gives them additional license to say things they normally wouldn't dare in other public venues.

It is interesting, at least in this context, how topics (presumably) on technique tend to be overshadowed by personal characteristics like background, profession, personality, demeanor. Those on the hunt are always keen to display their self-described expertise comparatively as if it's the definitive measure on virtually everything. It's not, not even close. You know when a discussion starts going south as soon as the obligatory "I (Bill, Joe, Fred, Barney, Matilda) have been doing such and such for the past fill-in-the-blank number of years and..." gets thrown into the mix. It's the typical first salvo when denigrating someone else's knowledge and skill.

So speaking as a relative newcomer to the craft (Yes, I'm invoking the authority of inexperience), it matters very little to me how much expertise forum member X so publically claims to have, or is claimed to have. Such displays of authority by themselves are rarely helpful, but demonstrated expertise always is. Stick to the latter and the former will quietly follow on its own without the need for reminder or mention.

[Charlie Stanford]

I'm not saying this to point to george or say "anything goes", but I do think it's good for things like that to be pointed out by someone like george from time to time. IF we could get more specific information out of Charlie from time to time, that might be helpful, too. Presume Charlie's point of view is fairly well calibrated because he's getting paid to do at least some of the work he does. We know george got/gets paid for his.

As amateurs, if george says we should strive to not bind our saws, then we should. I couldn't have told you a peep about clinching nails, but now we know more. Sometimes there's something to be learned from criticism.

A while ago (here's one for you Adam) when I first started handsawing, I was cutting fairly far away from the line and planing to it. Adam Cherubini said something along the lines of "you have to get to the point that you can saw on the line where it's appropriate to do that and not shoot every end". That was, to me, a helpful comment. It's not hard to ride the line on work, it's not hard to not bind saws, it's probably not hard to clinch nails in a professional looking way, but you have to know to do it.

Most of the time we don't, we're too busy patting each other on the back about our mediocre work. The first saw I made, george was the only person who offered advice for me to improve. It forced me to change the way I look at execution, I don't need to make anything, I could buy it all and dump woodworking entirely. Everyone has different priorities, some people like to make a lot and make it fast, some people like to make something exactly like period with tool marks to match. I like to make fewer things and try to make them something that I will not look back on and say "I did an amateurish job with that". My second and third saws were a lot better for george's commentary. Hopefully my fourth one will be, too. Indirectly, all of us who put together kits at the same time benefited from it, even though it would've been easy to call criticism and suggestion out of bounds.

Threads like this make us think. Some of us will conclude that the way Chris does stuff is fine, some of us will conclude that we'd like to know enough to know why george has a different opinion. At least we're thinking about it, though.

A whole lot of what I see described on these boards as hand methods of work are best case scenarios whose likelihood are so remote as to not be worth considering - mostly threads about hand prepping stock, sharpening, and matters of that ilk. A lot of this stuff, though not all, lacks a 'ring of truth' or any proportionality at all to time invested. Nothing is impossible with an unlimited time horizon and the luxury of rejecting every "bad" board that comes up in the pile (wouldn't THAT be nice?, he asks rhetorically). Anybody can ultimately twink, fiddle, and to some extent buy there way to 'perfection.' But, again, it is perfection often without any proportionality to the contortions necessary to achieve it. It is not a learning curve. It seems more like something weird, truncated, and contrived to me.

Were I to run across a bit of paying work in which the client had no other point of reference beyond department store fare, I'd likely fire up every machine I could lay my hands on in order to produce the work (and probably thoroughly enjoy it!). And then call it a day. Cash M'lady's check and be done with it. For what it's worth and all of that... Now, where did I put my Leigh jig?

[David Weaver]

Such displays of authority by themselves are rarely helpful, but demonstrated expertise always is....

If you don't know the posters involved in a discussion, they are helpful. If you are new to a craft or new to a discussion and unfamiliar with the subject, you otherwise wouldn't have the ability to tell who is more likely to be right.

What we get as information now vs. what was in print 30 years ago is *hugely* different. The advertisers are different, the targets are different, and what used to be entirely experts has dropped a few notches because that is, I guess what the market is.

Maybe 30 years ago, there were a lot of small makers and small cabinet shops that could drive subscription and advertising desires, but at least where I am, all of the small cabinet shops have disappeared. Hand tooling, which used to be a tiny group of skilled users is now a fairly large group of people who probably have low single digits of years of experience on average.

I can't think of anyone who is not a moderator of this forum who has contributed more to this forum than George (including providing/producing things for members that otherwise could not be found). But there is always a group of people external who would like to register for the forum and dictate content. The assumption that just presenting the information is the best way to let the good content float to the top hasn't proven out in the forums. And in a lot of cases, those who have offered the best content have moved on. It's a shame when that happens, and I'd hate to see the quality of this content devolve back to what it has on other forums.

Several years ago, Raney Nelson expressed frustration at another forum that it never went anywhere. That the content never improved and that the same topics roll over and over and over. All that led to was the largest volume of information being the generally accepted opinion, and how much do you see Raney posting about on the forums these days? It sure isn't that he couldn't offer a whole lot of valuable advice. There is probably only one reason that's not the case here, and that is precisely because someone who can do the best work resides here to calibrate our opinions.

[Mel Fulks]

The obvious desire to help should keep anyone from thinking "harsh".I joked about the encouragement given on band sawing that box because it impressed me as having all the earnestness of someone in a flight control tower telling someone how to land the plane because the pilot has just keeled over.

[David Weaver]

Were I to run across a bit of paying work in which the client had no other point of reference beyond department store fare, I'd likely fire up every machine I could lay my hands on in order to produce the work (and probably thoroughly enjoy it!). And then call it a day. Cash ...

So would I, the client likely wouldn't care, and timing and money combined together is a different ballgame.

[Phillip Dejardin]

If you don't know the posters involved in a discussion, they are helpful. If you are new to a craft or new to a discussion and unfamiliar with the subject, you otherwise wouldn't have the ability to tell who is more likely to be right.

What we get as information now vs. what was in print 30 years ago is *hugely* different. The advertisers are different, the targets are different, and what used to be entirely experts has dropped a few notches because that is, I guess what the market is.

Maybe 30 years ago, there were a lot of small makers and small cabinet shops that could drive subscription and advertising desires, but at least where I am, all of the small cabinet shops have disappeared. Hand tooling, which used to be a tiny group of skilled users is now a fairly large group of people who probably have low single digits of years of experience on average.

I can't think of anyone who is not a moderator of this forum who has contributed more to this forum than George (including providing/producing things for members that otherwise could not be found). But there is always a group of people external who would like to register for the forum and dictate content. The assumption that just presenting the information is the best way to let the good content float to the top hasn't proven out in the forums. And in a lot of cases, those who have offered the best content have moved on. It's a shame when that happens, and I'd hate to see the quality of this content devolve back to what it has on other forums.

Several years ago, Raney Nelson expressed frustration at another forum that it never went anywhere. That the content never improved and that the same topics roll over and over and over. All that led to was the largest volume of information being the generally accepted opinion, and how much do you see Raney posting about on the forums these days? It sure isn't that he couldn't offer a whole lot of valuable advice. There is probably only one reason that's not the case here, and that is precisely because someone who can do the best work resides here to calibrate our opinions.

And of course, David, the reasons and intent behind such public, self-described displays of expertise are for the benefit of newcomers to the craft like myself, right? Their purpose is singular in that regard and for the good of the uninitiated. It's a public service if you will. I know the argument, I see it put out there all the time, and I even agree with it on occasion – although less and less as time goes on. Nevertheless, the contexts in which the vast majority of these displays of expertise are leveled have absolutely nothing to do with helping out anyone, most certainly not the newcomer.

The issue here isn't expertise. The issue here is the rhetorical use of whatever expertise may or may not be present as a means of shooting down others. I find that shameful. Again, to repeat, "Such displays of authority by themselves are rarely helpful, but demonstrated expertise always is. Stick to the latter and the former will quietly follow on its own without the need for reminder or mention."

[george wilson]

Not sure what you are saying,Charlie,about being able to take all the time in the World to get something right. When we were making the harpsichord and violin movie,we were very,very rushed to get takes in between the museum bus going by,aircraft flying overhead,and trying to get these complex projects done during the quietest Winter months. The only re takes were done when a bit of trash got into the "gate" of the camera.This would be a lot easier today,without relying upon film.

I did the sawing out of the inlay on the name board of the harpsichord(spinet) in 3 hours flat,with the camera crew laying about waiting. Dovetails seen being cut on the spinet case were done in real time,with the quick,accurate saw cuts made just as you'll see them in the film. The chiseling was done the same way,and on the steep angle of the case.

Here are a few bad photos of correctly and incorrectly clinched nails. The correct ones are my tool chest,with the hand forged butterfly hinge. The bad clenching is on an original 18th.C. blanket chest in my bedroom. The guy was drunk,in a hurry,or just plain bad!!

The neatly clenched nails had their tips bent down on the ends to form staples. Each nail took about 60 seconds or less to clench. They aren't dead nuts square,but they were meant to look competently hand made and the chest was seen for many years standing open to see in the musical instrument shop.

I ask the simple question: Which nails would you rather do on your project?

By the way,I MADE these nails(not the hinge). The nails were made from horseshoe nails with their trapezoidal heads hammered into rose heads in a simple nail header I also made. A domed disc of hardened steel welded to a longer handle,with a hole just large enough to accept the shank of the nail. The horse shoe nail trick gives nice clenching nails,because their shanks are wide and somewhat thin. Plenty of metal in the heads to hammer into rose head nails. A good trick to know if you need handmade nails. I don't like those heavy shanked rose head nails you can buy. Their heads are all the same, struck in a die,and their shanks are very thick and hurt soft wood too much when you clench them.

Phillip,what you don't know is how some of these bloggers omit others not in their clique. Believe me,there has been shooting down of me behind the scenes,but I am not allowed to discuss it here. Just like in politics and everything else in the World,alliances are formed,others are excluded . That's just the way it always works. I am not a bad person. I'm just not a bravo Sierra merchant.

[David Weaver]

And of course, David, the reasons and intent behind such public, self-described displays of expertise are for the benefit of newcomers to the craft like myself, right?

They are for the benefit of anyone who wants to know what an accomplished woodworker, or professional would do. Not everything is to the benefit of someone who wants woodworking boards to be more like social club. Like I said, if everything has to be pleasant buddy buddy, usually the answer of the clique rises to the top, and the standard set is low. I personally choose the professional who tells it like he/she sees it, even if sometimes it slaps me in the head. If you registered here today and don't have context of the discussions, then you mght want to look at the library of work of some of the more experienced members. To my knowledge, there hs been very little of such "displays of authority" by themselves, they have generally been backed up by a library of work, and fortunately on this forum, the work that's posted persists for a very long time.

I am glas that this forum exists in the form it does, and with some exceptions, has generally seen valuable information for what it is rather than settling into a group consensus for manner minding. Such a thing just serves to drive off true experts who have earned their right to express bold opinions.

If you are pointing toward people in this post, then you should be around here for a while longer to see who provides genuine focused help to beginners.

[Phillip Dejardin]

Phillip,what you don't know is how some of these bloggers omit others not in their clique. Believe me,there has been shooting down of me behind the scenes,but I am not allowed to discuss it here. Just like in politics and everything else in the World,alliances are formed,others are excluded . That's just the way it always works. I am not a bad person. I'm just not a bravo Sierra merchant.

George, I actually do know how the blogger/forum/celebrity tribalism in woodworking works. I know it very well, in fact, which is why it bothers me so much when I see it continue over and over again. I was reluctant to comment here because these things almost never produce useful outcomes. But I did, nevertheless, because I'm seeing this sort of factionalism getting worse.

I ended up here because of Chris's blog post. I'm familiar with SMC and have been an occassional lurker for years. There's nothing unique about SMC or other forums or other blogs - including Chris's - in feeding this ridiculous factionalism among woodworkers. I'm not a "can't we all just get along" type of guy, but I really think this trend is diminishing the craft and the willingness of talented individuals to put themselves out there and provide useful content. My concerns are purely selfish, quite frankly.

And I most certainly don't think of you as a bad person. How could I? I don't even know you.

[Phillip Dejardin]

They are for the benefit of anyone who wants to know what an accomplished woodworker, or professional would do. Not everything is to the benefit of someone who wants woodworking boards to be more like social club. Like I said, if everything has to be pleasant buddy buddy, usually the answer of the clique rises to the top, and the standard set is low. I personally choose the professional who tells it like he/she sees it, even if sometimes it slaps me in the head. If you registered here today and don't have context of the discussions, then you mght want to look at the library of work of some of the more experienced members. To my knowledge, there hs been very little of such "displays of authority" by themselves, they have generally been backed up by a library of work, and fortunately on this forum, the work that's posted persists for a very long time.

I am glas that this forum exists in the form it does, and with some exceptions, has generally seen valuable information for what it is rather than settling into a group consensus for manner minding. Such a thing just serves to drive off true experts who have earned their right to express bold opinions.

If you are pointing toward people in this post, then you should be around here for a while longer to see who provides genuine focused help to beginners.

David, see my reply to George. And for the record, nowhere in my posts have I named anyone or blamed anyone individually. We're all culpable in this tribalistic stupidity. I just want it to stop.

Also, I probably should have waited before unleashing my screed. The new guy on the block thing is pretty standard and I violated that custom - my apologies.

[george wilson]

I think I am fighting a losing battle,getting myself between learning wood(or metal) workers and their heroes. The truth is too hard to swallow for those who are perhaps not well informed about the work. I don't mean you,because I don't know you either.

From my perspective,it's just not rocket science to see these things I've spoken of. It gets down to the charm factor of these types of "performers". Roy certainly has plenty of that. I'm sure they will continue to have their faithful followers.

I just wish I could tell about the grossly unfair situation I was put through in the museum over a crew that was only working 3 hours a day when I had a big job assigned to me to get done,but I guess I cannot. This is why I'm not in the "clique",but I've never been a clique person anyway. I don't need money,and don't need to start building a new career as a woodworking guru blogger at nearly 72. I'm quite comfortable to do what pleases me,and when,at this juncture of my retirement.

[Jason Coen]

What does this all matter, anyway? The world is ending in 4 days! :p

[David Weaver]

What does this all matter, anyway? The world is ending in 4 days! :p

Carp...I forgot about that. We're toast!!!

[David Weaver]

David, see my reply to George. And for the record, nowhere in my posts have I named anyone or blamed anyone individually. We're all culpable in this tribalistic stupidity. I just want it to stop.

Also, I probably should have waited before unleashing my screed. The new guy on the block thing is pretty standard and I violated that custom - my apologies.

It's not so much about tribes, it's about finding the most informed answer. I know from the route you got here, that seems like it's not the case, but really it is. If you wanted to make varnish, there are people who could tell you how to do it off the top of your head. If you wanted to make a plane iron or carve a lamb's tongue in a saw handle, same thing. If you wanted to dye something so that it was colorfast, truly colorfast, there are people you would ask. They are not the ones writing the books and blogs most of the time.

There are a lot of people like that. Unfortunatley, few of them visit the forums, and fewer maybe even have blogs. There is an order of accomplishment that is above and beyond trabalism here, and the detriment of the craft isn't due to manners, it's due to a flow of watered down information. It seems to be that the majority wants a watered down form of the craft, that much is clear.

Some of us don't want it, though. I personally want to get my information from the folks who can tell you how to make the varnish, who can tell me how to dye something permanently, and who can tell me what I should be doing when I say something like "I want to block up this plane and pein the pins and tails, and I don't want it to have stray hammer marks on it, what should I do?"

[Phillip Dejardin]

George, it sounds like you've been bitten more than once by this tribalism, and I'm with you. Again, I'm speaking against this sort of thing wherever it crops up. I've participated in this "clique" behavior that George is referring to and been a victim of it as well. I've probably caused more harm than good here.

[David Weaver]

Nahh. Stick around for a while, though, or remember to come back if you have a rotten, difficult or esoteric question.

[Zach Dillinger]

Some of us don't want it, though. I personally want to get my information from the folks who can tell you how to make the varnish, who can tell me how to dye something permanently, and who can tell me what I should be doing when I say something like "I want to block up this plane and pein the pins and tails, and I don't want it to have stray hammer marks on it, what should I do?"

Indeed. The internet could be such a wonderful resource (it can be now, but the reverberation chamber effect is too strong) if only someone could reach out to the true masters of their craft, not just the true masters of reaching out...

[george wilson]

The lesson I learned back then was that you don't mess with the guy who's getting free T.V. advertising for you!!! There were no consequences from it,as I was too valuable myself,but the thing left as bad taste in my mouth,for sure.

Some guys get to be nice guys on T.V.,and very different when not in front of the camera. I could never devote my life to having a show. Just not in me. When you have 1,it totally dominates your life and takes all your time. The worst thing for me would be,it would take all the time I would have had making nicer and nicer things,and improving my skills and knowledge. I'll take the route I chose because it is the only route I am suited for. I like making things,not being a folk hero.

[Phillip Dejardin]

It's not so much about tribes, it's about finding the most informed answer. I know from the route you got here, that seems like it's not the case, but really it is. If you wanted to make varnish, there are people who could tell you how to do it off the top of your head. If you wanted to make a plane iron or carve a lamb's tongue in a saw handle, same thing. If you wanted to dye something so that it was colorfast, truly colorfast, there are people you would ask. They are not the ones writing the books and blogs most of the time.

There are a lot of people like that. Unfortunatley, few of them visit the forums, and fewer maybe even have blogs. There is an order of accomplishment that is above and beyond trabalism here, and the detriment of the craft isn't due to manners, it's due to a flow of watered down information. It seems to be that the majority wants a watered down form of the craft, that much is clear.

Some of us don't want it, though. I personally want to get my information from the folks who can tell you how to make the varnish, who can tell me how to dye something permanently, and who can tell me what I should be doing when I say something like "I want to block up this plane and pein the pins and tails, and I don't want it to have stray hammer marks on it, what should I do?"

Well, I'm not going to comment on Chris's bona fides. I will say, however, that I am not in any way, shape or form one of Schwarz's regular followers, whatever that means. I visit his blog once or twice a month, and if something catches my fancy I'll stick around and make a comment or two. I like Chris and have learned much from him. But if I was forced to identify anyone as my online woodworking mentor, which is all that I have at the moment, it would probably be Garrett Hack or Philip Lowe.

I'm fully aware of my inexperience in woodowrking compared to you and many others, David. I'm also aware that not every bit of information I get will be useful or accurate. But I'm also aware that distilling that information, warts and all, is an important part of the learning process. I need to make mistakes in order to learn, and the only way to accomplish that is to make those mistakes. I'm assuming that the knowledge and experience you've gained involved making mistakes.

[george wilson]

Phillip,pay the $6.00 so you can look at the FAQ section at the top of the Neanderthal section. It is infinitely more informative and satisfying than a magazine you'd pay more for,believe me. Search george wilson I made in this forum to find out who I am.

[Chuck Nickerson]

George is just trying to start his own tribe, and that's fine.

I manage to visit tribes without swearing alliegence, and hope to continue.

[Matt McCormick]

248196 VS. 248197

Both are good......... who do you want to model your art after? Kind of like whats going on here eh?

When I was a young Tool and Die apprentice, I asked questions and got as much instruction as humanly possible, we were shipped From Dept to Dept. mold shop die shop tool room engineering, etc, my second six month stint was in the grinding shop. The crusty old Master Craftsman that I was assigned to showed me everything he knew, and then he wrote out my assessment for the apprentice board to review, we then came in front this board, made up of all the vice presidents and managers of the company. As I walked in they were all chuckeling.... I was kinda scared and sat down. The president of the company said "so you are the guy that is going to have new brains"..... Huh??? What..... they all laughed at me, Well, he said your progress report says - This man will have brand new Brains when he is sixty-five, as he sure as Heck don't use his own..... Please help him remove them from the crate he is keeping them in, as he will end up worthless, because of his wanting to do things like his instructors and not applying his skill to problems he is assigned...... This got my attention and I got a valuable education on How to think for myself when actually doing a job. Learn everything you can about your task .... then use your brains in working out how to do it. I hope this is clear and it is not intended to put anybody down but Just how I see this issue. Sorry I am not good at grammar, I make things.... I don't write much, thanks -matt

[george wilson]

I think I may already have a small tribe,Chuck. My main goal is to post as good work as I can,to try to educate as well as possible,answer questions if I can,and help out others in the forum. I guess that inevitably leads to making a tribe,though. I think these things are inseparable. I haven't started any self serving blogs,though,so I've not really made a huge effort to start a tribe as some have!!:)

[Phillip Dejardin]

248196 VS. 248197

Both are good......... who do you want to model your art after? Kind of like whats going on here eh?

I can't tell the difference. And what's with Monet's hair?


When I was a young Tool and Die apprentice, I asked questions and got as much instruction as humanly possible, we were shipped From Dept to Dept. mold shop die shop tool room engineering, etc, my second six month stint was in the grinding shop. The crusty old Master Craftsman that I was assigned to showed me everything he knew, and then he wrote out my assessment for the apprentice board to review, we then came in front this board, made up of all the vice presidents and managers of the company. As I walked in they were all chuckeling.... I was kinda scared and sat down. The president of the company said "so you are the guy that is going to have new brains"..... Huh??? What..... they all laughed at me, Well, he said your progress report says - This man will have brand new Brains when he is sixty-five, as he sure as Heck don't use his own..... Please help him remove them from the crate he is keeping them in, as he will end up worthless, because of his wanting to do things like his instructors and not applying his skill to problems he is assigned...... This got my attention and I got a valuable education on How to think for myself when actually doing a job. Learn everything you can about your task .... then use your brains in working out how to do it. I hope this is clear and it is not intended to put anybody down but Just how I see this issue. Sorry I am not good at grammar, I make things.... I don't write much, thanks -matt

Exactly!

[ian maybury]

Hi guys. This is to with great trepidation float a few words of a more philosophical/metaphysical nature. Not as a criticism, but as a view on the nature of the human condition - and it's implications for forums in general. I guess the underlying issue in all of this is that while there's a few with little or no axe to grind most of us are ego/self interest driven, and dare i say it - pack/tribal animals. Mostly striving to get ahead/get up the hierarchy of whatever pack/tribe/clique we aspire to membership of at the expense of the other guy. Some play get ahead by subtler means than others, and the objectives tend to depend what we perceive our needs to be.

The result is that we get to see (on forums in general) everything from at one end the unassuming guy that may or may not drop gems of wisdom, through everything in the middle to at the other end (more in the public arena than on forums) the most blatant self promotion - again potentially with or without high levels of expertise. There's those that are unnecessarily deferential, there's those that are quietly but incredibly expert, and there's those that seek to use their bit of expertise to lord it over others and to defend the sand pile. (the caricature blue collar beaver in the check shirt and hard hat in the cartoons that sucks in his breath and uses the jargon to blind all and sundry comes to mind...) There's those that shoot from the hip - that don't even bother reading threads properly, and that tend to interpret them as suits their own agenda. There's signs of a distinctly commercial bias in play on occasion. There's approaches ranging from recreational, to ideological, to getting the job done by the fastest and most cost effective means - with the latter containing everything from the lump hammer merchants to the very methodical and precise.

I guess depending on your life situation and or perspective it can suit/be legitimate to position according to any and more of the above. My personal take for example is that i enjoy precision and techniques that 'work' (that deliver the intended result), and i like to learn - and while i need to make some money it's not the primary driver or even close to it. Dare i say it - i'd like to achieve a degree of respect for my work (whatever it is) too.

There should i think be room and tolerance for all approaches - subject only to their being fact based, honest, rational from whatever perspective and workable. i.e. misleading hot air that leads others into trouble is never healthy. The pity i think is that as in life we tend to get competing factions, often operating uneasily and jockeying for position with others. Alliances form and dissolve according to interests, and myths/accepted standard explanations get negtotiated - with the result that anything that is seen to threaten what in effect is a hard negotiated status quo takes flak. Often from more than one faction.

This to me is the greatest barrier to a forum like this becoming an even more powerful tool than it is already for the development and sharing of diverse methods and information (not all of which will be relevant for everybody) - it's very easy to get bogged down and end up defending and repeating ad infinitum (out of a perceived need to stay safe/keep in with the tribe/'fit in') a safe but ultimately sterile dogma/status quo.

Which if it happens must (a) render whole areas of discussion unmentionable (e.g. stuff like the loose machine manufacturer's specifications which i've raised elsewhere), and (b) block the discussion of methods beyond idealised versions that sometimes as a result don't address all the practical realities.

:) Anyway. Fire away.....

ian

[David Weaver]

248196

Happy little tribes. Happy little blogs. Happy little chipbreakers. And a titanium white plane iron for all. :)

[Zach Dillinger]

Happy little tribes. Happy little blogs. Happy little chipbreakers. And a titanium white plane iron for all. :)

And remember, there are no mistakes, only happy accidents.

[Mel Fulks]

Well, briefly, things first started to get complicated when the old apprentice system ended. "Do it like I said do it ,or get out " was a good way to teach and many learned a lot .

[Charlie Stanford]

So would I, the client likely wouldn't care, and timing and money combined together is a different ballgame.

Well, it's a start isn't it David? At least we've established that there is some area in all of this where a pragmatic approach makes sense. There are others, for sure.

[David Weaver]

Well, it's a start isn't it David? At least we've established that there is some area in all of this where a pragmatic approach makes sense. There are others, for sure.

Any time you're building for pay to a deadline, or building something that someone else wants you to build and you don't want to....what other approach is there?

Somewhere around January or February through however long it takes, my wife expects me to build new kitchen cabinets. Plywood, router, Tracksaw, mechanical drawer guides and spray lacquer seem like a good idea. What do you think? I don't know if I can bring myself to sand, but there shouldn't be much planing to do after the stock for the face frames, doors and drawers goes through a power planer, huh?

[george wilson]

David,I'd just go buy them. I know you don't want to make them.

[Derek A. Johnson]

Gentlemen,

I value the online woodworking forums and greatly appreciate the contributions made by both long-time professionals and those new to the craft. Of what use is a forum without the participation of those willing to share their hard-earned knowledge and those desiring to learn.

I have read this entire thread, however, and the tone is discouraging. It's not what is being said, but how it is said. I believe the root of the problem is that some of the posts are disrespectful. I am not, and will never be a professional woodworker, but I am a professional teacher. Perhaps, as some have implied, that means I can't do, but I would like to share one lesson I have learned anyhow. In 24 years of teaching physics to high school students I have learned that the very worst thing you can do is to disrespect a student--put them down in front of others, humiliate them, make them feel dumb, elevate yourself and diminish them. When I overhear students talk about a teacher they "hate", the reason is never that the teacher made them work hard, corrected their mistakes, taught them something new, made them think, or even gave them a failing grade. It always comes down to the issue of respect. Once you lose it, a student is very hard to teach.

Learning can be painful, I know. I teach a wonderfully interesting subject, the mention of which all too frequently strikes fear into those who ask what I teach. Oh, the anger I feel towards those teachers and professors who ruined the experience of learning physics. How I conduct myself can make all the difference. I want to share my knowledge and I want them to learn, so I need to exhibit patience, a sense of humor, and a desire to move the student forward in a way that doesn't alienate them. I need to respect them.

Similarly, this forum is a place for teaching and learning and I think that the same principle applies. I believe some of the posters feel that they have been disrespected and are lashing out. Both teachers and students need to feel respected. That doesn't mean we can't argue points and disagree with each other. It does mean that how you do it matters. We are not apprentices and few will tolerate being spoken to as such. It appears that the hand tool forum has lost a participant, perhaps due to this thread, and I think that is a shame. It diminishes this forum for all.

I know I am not a regular participant, but I have followed this forum for years. Consider this a comment from someone usually standing on the sidelines observing, yet who values the game. Please be respectful in your posts. Think about how they will be perceived by others--being correct is not the only goal. I believe the goal is to teach, to learn, and to enjoy through sharing our experiences. If I ever finish that darn tool chest, I'll be sure to post all the lessons I learned there.


Derek Johnson

[Jim Koepke]

Derek,

Thanks for a thoughtful and informative post.

I am looking forward to your tool chest post.

jtk

[george wilson]

Well written,Derek,and welcome. I agree with what you said,but you cannot not know the undertow of what happened in the past. But,I still agree with your policy. As a kid,I was living in your area,and was on 3 light houses: Destruction Island,Lime Kiln,and Point No Point.

[Matt McCormick]

Gentlemen,

I value the online woodworking forums and greatly appreciate the contributions made by both long-time professionals and those new to the craft. Of what use is a forum without the participation of those willing to share their hard-earned knowledge and those desiring to learn.

I have read this entire thread, however, and the tone is discouraging. It's not what is being said, but how it is said. I believe the root of the problem is that some of the posts are disrespectful.
Derek Johnson

Very nice Post Derek. I would like to try to tell you what I see, I see most of us here are Hobbyists and a good number are good enough to even earn some money doing our hobby. We have a very nice community here and other places. I went to the WIA in Pasadena and boy did I meet some wonderful people. I also met some of MY woodworking Hero's, Roy, Chris, Adam, Mary May and others I went to Roy's dinner he hosted, I really like Roy allot. I have bought every book he has written on woodworking, I have bought some of my favorite episodes of his TV show, I have most of Chris's books and videos too. Money is not easy for me to come by (like most here) but I am happy with spending it on learning from these guys. My trade is Toolmaking(I make and design micro-surgical instruments). I really enjoy Roy's world, I really like Chris's professorial slant on things, and I believe he is most responsible for the hand tool craze today. Great guy!!
I posted a picture of Bob Ross the PBS how to paint guy, I liked him and learned much from him. I also posted a painting by Monet(I am old but never met him). Roy Chris and others teach and write for money, I am very glad that they do. I'll bet they are very thankful they can do it and love it. We also have a Few craftsmen that are in the Monet mold in that they are professional craftsmen they have no money at stake in sharing their knowledge. One of these guys gets a bum rap in MY opinion...... I don't think his pointing out some things others do or teach , is ego driven. I think he sees something wrong and comments on it.
If I said the symbol for Aluminum is AU instead of AL you would point this out right? I also am not blind, I see some bad experiences in the past by some of our protagonists with each other. I ran a Physics machine-shop at a major university once, met some awesome people, scary smart, some almost crazy with no people skills at all! I would much rather learn physics from you than some of those guys...... But I would listen to them if they decided to explain quantum anything to me.
Almost the same here. I don't think Chris clearing out some groups from his favorites is from hurt feelings.... He is a bigger man than that, He's not left us never to return, more like, Heck they saw me bang a saw on the floor..... I think I will rethink that and I think I would rather go have a micro-brew rather than spend the next week hashing this out in a public forum. Of course thats what I think he is thinking ...... Again guys I am sorry for my poor writing skills .... and now promise to return to the land of lurking...... until you gore my ox of course...... -your old pal matt

PS- I will add some smilies here so you all will know I am not being mean :):):):):) just in case.....:)

[Chris Griggs]

.... and now promise to return to the land of lurking...... until you gore my ox of course...... -your old pal matt

PS- I will add some smilies here so you all will know I am not being mean :):):):):) just in case.....:)

Ah don't go back to the land of the lurking we could use some new blood in our tribe. I'm getting bored of us, new folks make things more interesting. Plus I like all your smiles.

[David Weaver]

Matt, I get exactly what you're saying. And I agree with it entirely.

I wonder how many people got into hand tools without external publication influence. I didn't know of anyone other David Charlesworth when I started with hand tools, which was maybe 7 years ago now. The only reason I even knew anything about him was because a friend who was major major into working wood like you'd work metal with machines said I should get a lie nielsen block plane to go along with the power tools, and that I should watch the charlesworth video to learn to sharpen it.

First edge was a good one and that was the end of the story, a premium bench plane followed several months later for christmas. Now that guy calls me "Luddite" and says he's not sure what he did to lead me down the wrong path that I've taken :)

Anyway, those of us who got here mostly by chance, less by reading and more by independent wants... i wonder if we have less allegiance toward personality and more toward absolute quality of information. I do.

[Zach Dillinger]

i wonder if we have less allegiance toward personality and more toward absolute quality of information. I do.

Gosh, I hope this is true for all of us. If we get caught in a cult of personality, the craft as a whole is going to suffer. This isn't intended to denigrate anyone, especially not George, or Roy, or Schwarz. They all provide good information in different ways.

[george wilson]

I'm afraid that allegiance towards personality trumps allegiance to actual knowledge. That's why the public keeps electing the presidents we do. It's human nature. And look where it's gotten us!!:)

[John A. Callaway]

David, or any of you other guys..... I have looked around on the " central " forum and due to its weird setup compared to this forum, I can't really find the articles over there that give the end result and proper ways to set up a chip breaker to work in the manner those videos indicate. Can some one please p.m. Me a link or something...?

I certainly wish that forum was set up like this one. Seems like a very expansive collection of knowledge, much like this place is!

I have the thread on this forum, and if all of what's is over there is included on this one, I can go back and read it all the way through now that it has pretty much been wrapped up.
Thanks.

[Chris Griggs]

Google "setting a cap iron" and it's the first thing to come up.

[george wilson]

I should apologize to any forum members I may have offended. I should just take my knocks and forget them. I have too strong a sense of injustice,and in this World I need to remember that life is just not fair. That's the truth of it. No one has prompted me to

write this. It is entirely voluntary. Though I haven't said anything untrue,I might be better off not saying them. What set me off was a sense that David had been possibly denied credit. I know I have been,too,but that's over with. This is a great forum.

I still think that those who are "gurus",or who place themselves as experts should be more careful how they show others,who are trying to learn tool use,in videos.

[David Weaver]

Seems like a very expansive collection of knowledge, much like this place is!


It is, but it's a smaller group and it can really delve into splitting hairs...repeatedly. It's an old school format, and like you say, is harder to read than here.

[John A. Callaway]

Thanks Chris.

And George, remember, those who seek knowledge because they want to learn all they can, generally find that knowledge.... ( even learning when and where credit is due) I knew immediately when I saw the blog posts and the video that the chip breaker topic was a light that started burning bright in the online forums before any magazine or writer got ahold of it. Most of us in the hobby were aware of that fact too.

Having said that, I like the former editor ( now publisher ) in Kentucky. I think he puts things in a very realistic tone, and he has saved me some money when I was considering some tool purchases.... And he ( along with you, albeit perhaps on different channels ) and those he publishes are trying to drag out the some what forgotten/lost history of woodworking and tool usage. Something that hardly any one else is doing on a sizable scale at this time.

( please write a book or five George!!!! They will be the center point of many a woodworking library )

all in all, the analysis of the craft, it's tools and techniques has never been more widely discussed than in this, the Internet age. Credit is due, sure. I hope the situation gets resolved.

[Kees Heiden]

John,

Back in May I made a video about setting the capiron. You can find links and some background information on my blog:
http://seekelot.blogspot.nl/2012/06/capiron-or-chipbreaker.html

[george wilson]

Kees,your straight chips remind me of a 19th.C. picture of a cabinet maker planing wood. Those long,straight chips are flying up out of his plane. It looks just like he is using the chip breaker very closely set as it should have been. This picture has been posted here before,I'm pretty sure. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

[David Weaver]

Summary to round out the thread since it's wound on a long time, and gotten into all kinds of stuff other than chipbreakers (it seems to be drawing heat like a heel wrestler, too):
1) the knowledge must've existed at least since the first double iron planes were made in quantity. That's over 200 years ago.
2) Warren Mickley has beaten the drum about it for years (my favorite, and what were the most irritating comments to me when I was on the other side of it, are the comments where Warren flatly states that if you have trouble with a double iron plane, you don't know how to use it, no matter how experienced you are with other things or how much you think you know about it. I only didn't paste them here because they're property of another site). Warren has been using common double iron planes since before kato and kawai videos were made. Warren would've been beating the drum without Kato and Kawai's information. I have no idea who taught him to use a double iron plane.
3) Several of us were talking about using a double iron plane on the forums and in PMs, starting march '12, before there was any video and before we knew about it. We didn't pick up on it because of the video, but the video did offer excellent ammunition to show that it works.
4) Because of the talk on the forums, Bill contacted us and said "I have some information to show you, we have to get it out there". Bill wanted the focus to be influencing the ROS type users who wouldn't use a plane unless it worked every time (I don't think that's worked out). I wanted just to figure out what warren knew that I didn't, and second, to get the common pitch planes to perform like they must've been able to (else we would've seen more higher pitch plane versions, which almost disappeared completely once the double iron plane was popular).
5) The unearthing of the video was brought by forum members - bill and steve (not me), it should be credited that this change in general came about as a result of forum discussions and the work of curious forum members and that without forum discussion fostering it, there'd be no bloggers talking about it. In less than a year, the discussion has gone from everyone accepting that a tight mouth and steep iron was the only way to mitigate tearout to, hopefully, everyone accepting that you can do the same thing with an inexpensive common pitch plane.
6) there are better places to get advice about it than bloggers (Kees' blog notwithstanding), and anyone who tells you it's tedious...as warren pointed out half a decade ago...doesn't know what they think they know.

This came about mostly because I was talking to george offline and I mentioned that I saw a lot of static crediting the origin of all of this to the wrong place. As in it was being attributed to people who had nothing to do with it, those people didn't attribute it to themselves. I don't think anyone saw my forum post and claimed credit or accepted it, I'm not that vain. I think they probably saw the video that was unearthed by Bill and Steve's labor. And without Warren, there would've probably been no drive to find information. Mark Hennebury would've worked in obscurity, too, as far as the forums go (and mark fully understood the use of the second iron because supersurfacers use them). Without Bill Tindall and Steve Elliot, the work Kato and Kawai did would not have been shown to us. Without warren's talk about double irons all the time, and without warren torching expensive planes at WIA with a cheap plane, I wouldn't have had any interest in following up, either.

I wouldn't have said anything about it, but George was nice enough to. It did bother me that the discussion was turning toward crediting people discovering something that was actually a collective forum effort, and the advice coming from elsewhere wasn't as good as the advice that we've already put out there.

If anyone is bothered that we think knowing where things came from is important, that's OK. If anyone is bothered that George thinks we should get information that's as accurate as possible, that's OK. If anyone is bothered that I think the same thing as george thinks, that's OK, too. I'd hope what comes of it is that we collectively realize that the forums (any of them that get involved in rigorous discussion, some generally don't) where rigorous discussion occurs are likely to have the greatest breadth, depth and accuracy of information...once you know where to go on them to get it.

(perhaps we can close it out at that and not have any more back and forth not related to cap irons.....well, don't confuse me with one of those type of members who likes to tell anyone else what they can do. maybe we can dig up another whopper next year as a group. This year it was cap irons, it still excites me to use $14 of plane and replacement iron and get the same results I've gotten with planes costing 40 times that much. What warren said, we finally have the tools to "get it" more easily.)

[Charlie Stanford]

Summary to round out the thread since it's wound on a long time, and gotten into all kinds of stuff other than chipbreakers (it seems to be drawing heat like a heel wrestler, too):
1) the knowledge must've existed at least since the first double iron planes were made in quantity. That's over 200 years ago.
2) Warren Mickley has beaten the drum about it for years (my favorite, and what were the most irritating comments to me when I was on the other side of it, are the comments where Warren flatly states that if you have trouble with a double iron plane, you don't know how to use it, no matter how experienced you are with other things or how much you think you know about it. I only didn't paste them here because they're property of another site). Warren has been using common double iron planes since before kato and kawai videos were made. Warren would've been beating the drum without Kato and Kawai's information. I have no idea who taught him to use a double iron plane.
3) Several of us were talking about using a double iron plane on the forums and in PMs, starting march '12, before there was any video and before we knew about it. We didn't pick up on it because of the video, but the video did offer excellent ammunition to show that it works.
4) Because of the talk on the forums, Bill contacted us and said "I have some information to show you, we have to get it out there". Bill wanted the focus to be influencing the ROS type users who wouldn't use a plane unless it worked every time (I don't think that's worked out). I wanted just to figure out what warren knew that I didn't, and second, to get the common pitch planes to perform like they must've been able to (else we would've seen more higher pitch plane versions, which almost disappeared completely once the double iron plane was popular).
5) The unearthing of the video was brought by forum members - bill and steve (not me), it should be credited that this change in general came about as a result of forum discussions and the work of curious forum members and that without forum discussion fostering it, there'd be no bloggers talking about it. In less than a year, the discussion has gone from everyone accepting that a tight mouth and steep iron was the only way to mitigate tearout to, hopefully, everyone accepting that you can do the same thing with an inexpensive common pitch plane.
6) there are better places to get advice about it than bloggers (Kees' blog notwithstanding), and anyone who tells you it's tedious...as warren pointed out half a decade ago...doesn't know what they think they know.

This came about mostly because I was talking to george offline and I mentioned that I saw a lot of static crediting the origin of all of this to the wrong place. As in it was being attributed to people who had nothing to do with it, those people didn't attribute it to themselves. I don't think anyone saw my forum post and claimed credit or accepted it, I'm not that vain. I think they probably saw the video that was unearthed by Bill and Steve's labor. And without Warren, there would've probably been no drive to find information. Mark Hennebury would've worked in obscurity, too, as far as the forums go (and mark fully understood the use of the second iron because supersurfacers use them). Without Bill Tindall and Steve Elliot, the work Kato and Kawai did would not have been shown to us. Without warren's talk about double irons all the time, and without warren torching expensive planes at WIA with a cheap plane, I wouldn't have had any interest in following up, either.

I wouldn't have said anything about it, but George was nice enough to. It did bother me that the discussion was turning toward crediting people discovering something that was actually a collective forum effort, and the advice coming from elsewhere wasn't as good as the advice that we've already put out there.

If anyone is bothered that we think knowing where things came from is important, that's OK. If anyone is bothered that George thinks we should get information that's as accurate as possible, that's OK. If anyone is bothered that I think the same thing as george thinks, that's OK, too. I'd hope what comes of it is that we collectively realize that the forums (any of them that get involved in rigorous discussion, some generally don't) where rigorous discussion occurs are likely to have the greatest breadth, depth and accuracy of information...once you know where to go on them to get it.

(perhaps we can close it out at that and not have any more back and forth not related to cap irons.....well, don't confuse me with one of those type of members who likes to tell anyone else what they can do. maybe we can dig up another whopper next year as a group. This year it was cap irons, it still excites me to use $14 of plane and replacement iron and get the same results I've gotten with planes costing 40 times that much. What warren said, we finally have the tools to "get it" more easily.)

I'll bet you weren't half as excited (or won't be, which is it?) as the day you put an important amount of folding money back into your hip pocket from selling a boatload, or even a few, premium planes because this technique has basically made them superfluous. Hey, if you're getting the same results why not? Maybe you already have and I missed that post. A fourteen dollar plane. Imagine that.

The lovely Mrs. aware of this breakthrough? Have you given a parting gift to the UPS man? You won't be seeing him any longer I suppose. May we assume that your kit is complete with regard to finishing planes? You 'thinning herd' or anything like that? Please let us know if anything juicy is for sale.

[Kees Heiden]

Kees,your straight chips remind me of a 19th.C. picture of a cabinet maker planing wood. Those long,straight chips are flying up out of his plane. It looks just like he is using the chip breaker very closely set as it should have been. This picture has been posted here before,I'm pretty sure. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Yes! And these rather stiff straight shavings are clearing the wooden plane much better too. On softer stuff, when planing fast and furious, the shavings are indeed literally shooting out of the plane. I remember a German text where this is explained too and the major advantage being said is that the shavings don't curl up in front of the plane anymore.

Personally I'm not thining my herd of smoothers yet. But they didn't cost me much in the first place, and I really like all of them. The double iron technique works very nicely in all my planes. I guess I fall squarily in the tool collector category.

[David Weaver]

I'll bet you weren't half as excited (or won't be, which is it?) as the day you put an important amount of folding money back into your hip pocket from selling a boatload, or even a few, premium planes because this technique has basically made them superfluous. Hey, if you're getting the same results why not? Maybe you already have and I missed that post. A fourteen dollar plane. Imagine that.

The lovely Mrs. aware of this breakthrough? Have you given a parting gift to the UPS man? You won't be seeing him any longer I suppose. May we assume that your kit is complete with regard to finishing planes? You 'thinning herd' or anything like that? Please let us know if anything juicy is for sale.

Charlie, I'll let you make up your own straw scenarios. Whatever excites you. It makes no material difference in my "folding money" either way.

[Charlie Stanford]

Charlie, I'll let you make up your own straw scenarios. Whatever excites you. It makes no material difference in my "folding money" either way.

Figured as much. This all seems to be more about posts on forums and blogs than boots on the ground woodworking. So much for $14 planes kicking $600 planes' "assets."

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I don't know man, I've no dog in this, but your last two posts in this thread seemed excessively snarky, Charlie. I'm not sure the point, but it reads as kind of rude just for the sake of it.

[Carl Beckett]

thread 6 days old and pushing 6900 views. (did I read that right!!!)

Wow.

I am a student here, and appreciate everyone that contributes their thoughts and time. There is no doubt in my mind that many times I do not do things the 'right' way. I will admit, that sometimes I just dont care. (am horrified myself to think of all the different things I have used as a 'hammer')

Dereks post was especially appreciated. One of the reasons I like this forum is the willingness to offer feedback and direction - but also the tolerance to just say, ya - you really screwed that up but next time could do xyz and improve on it. Its just my personality, but if I have to sit through a long lecture and training on everything I ever tried - I would lose interest and go a different direction for sure. I also have a fair bit of philosophical value that 'there are a lot of ways to skin a cat', and 'Im not always looking for the 'optimal' way, just 'a' way'.

Which is just saying that yep. Sometimes I just aint gonna listen. Sorry. If this means someone is going to then withhold their knowledge.. well, ok then I guess. For me though - especially with my children - I offer then guidance and wisdom that I can, but let them ultimately make much of their own decisions and learn. My belief is that this experience is a key part of learning.

I try to respect everyone here. And can learn 'something', from 'anyone'. Even if they are giving me bad advice (because ultimately, my experience in trying out this advice will arm me with the knowledge to decide whether it is preferred over what I might otherwise do - and I do reserve this right to form that decision on my own, no matter where the source of the knowledge). I have learned over the years that so much of what we 'know' - we really dont. I want to hear it. Then will try it out for myself.

I guess this just makes me a cantankerous old woodworker wanna be.....

[Charlie Stanford]

I don't know man, I've no dog in this, but your last two posts in this thread seemed excessively snarky, Charlie. I'm not sure the point, but it reads as kind of rude just for the sake of it.

The revolution doesn't seem to be so revolutionary. There's talk of one to be sure, but that seems to be about it.

[David Weaver]

thread 6 days old and pushing 6900 views. (did I read that right!!!)



That's the "drawing heat" I referred to. Except wrestlers do it on purpose. We seem to have run into an influx of fans here.


One of the reasons I like this forum is the willingness to offer feedback and direction - but also the tolerance to just say, ya - you really screwed that up but next time could do xyz and improve on it.

I think that is exactly format this forum follows, but you are likely to get a better quality answer here than most places. It's one of the few forums I've seen where you will get this last part:


next time could do xyz and improve on it.

...and without a river current of folks coming down on a person offering good and precise advice.

[george wilson]

Well,learning is good,even if it costs a few dollars. It beats never learning anything. The amount of money spent here learning things is slight,anyway. What do you think it cost NASA when they found out their space telescope mirror was ground wrong? Now,that's money!!:) And learning to remember to not confuse metric and inch measurements cost dearly!!(I think that is what happened).

I have no intention of selling my LN or LV planes off,anyway. They are made heavier,have flatter soles than old Stanleys,and are a pleasure to work with. Nice tools inspire me to pick them up and do something with them. That's the human factor,which often goes beyond other considerations. It's why some(not me),have Rolex watches rather than Seikos or Timex. If I ever lose the romance of making things,or of enjoying nice tools,better just lower me into the ground.

One of the saddest things I ever read was about an old man who burned his tools because they had caused him so much trouble.

As for the river of fans,it hasn't been that many,but I think it does show that some things are governed by a popularity contest regardless of facts. Why did everyone re elect the same politicians? That made little sense to me.

Coming from a museum situation(about the same thing as existing in a University faculty situation where the snobbery is just incredible),I'm quite familiar with those who do not have eyes to see or ears to hear. I just cannot understand why that is. I can say,though,that the supposed "elite" curatorial types never would say anything against one of their own. They would always find some way to get around $250,000.00 dollars wasted on a bogus antique,or on large investments made in a con man with a learn-ED English accent (always convincingly quoting from the same book I had read 6 times. The elite hadn't) . Eventually,some saw the truth,but it was several years,uphill all the way.

My problem is,I'm not a political animal. I just want to get to the truth,and I don't always know how to sufficiently sugar coat it. I can tell you all that if I did a job a little wrong,I've had to do it over for free a number of times,often when the rightness or wrongness was splitting hairs. I didn't get molly coddled because it might hurt my feelings. And I didn't get angry with the customer who paid to have the job done right. When you work in that high level of customer expectations which I have,you'd better be able to deliver the goods. That,at least,has had the positive effect of making me improve my work.

Here is an example of the work I am expected to do,or re-do if not passable to the truly micrometer eyes of my customer(or whoever else I do work for): One of these is the 200 year old original. I made the other one,an ivory,boxwood,brass and iron spinning wheel flier and bobbin. No nonsense here. If it isn't what it should be,I don't get paid. And that's as it should be. Some craftsmen won't work for this person. I enjoy the challenge.

All of this won't change any minds anyway. People see what they want to see. I still believe if you are setting yourself up as a guru,be that guru.

[Jason Coen]

Nice tools inspire me to pick them up and do something with them. That's the human factor,which often goes beyond other considerations. It's why some(not me),have Rolex watches rather than Seikos or Timex. If I ever lose the romance of making things,or of enjoying nice tools,better just lower me into the ground.


And all of the people said....Amen.

:)

[Phillip Dejardin]

Summary to round out the thread since it's wound on a long time, and gotten into all kinds of stuff other than chipbreakers (it seems to be drawing heat like a heel wrestler, too):
1) the knowledge must've existed at least since the first double iron planes were made in quantity. That's over 200 years ago.
2) Warren Mickley has beaten the drum about it for years (my favorite, and what were the most irritating comments to me when I was on the other side of it, are the comments where Warren flatly states that if you have trouble with a double iron plane, you don't know how to use it, no matter how experienced you are with other things or how much you think you know about it. I only didn't paste them here because they're property of another site). Warren has been using common double iron planes since before kato and kawai videos were made. Warren would've been beating the drum without Kato and Kawai's information. I have no idea who taught him to use a double iron plane.
3) Several of us were talking about using a double iron plane on the forums and in PMs, starting march '12, before there was any video and before we knew about it. We didn't pick up on it because of the video, but the video did offer excellent ammunition to show that it works.
4) Because of the talk on the forums, Bill contacted us and said "I have some information to show you, we have to get it out there". Bill wanted the focus to be influencing the ROS type users who wouldn't use a plane unless it worked every time (I don't think that's worked out). I wanted just to figure out what warren knew that I didn't, and second, to get the common pitch planes to perform like they must've been able to (else we would've seen more higher pitch plane versions, which almost disappeared completely once the double iron plane was popular).
5) The unearthing of the video was brought by forum members - bill and steve (not me), it should be credited that this change in general came about as a result of forum discussions and the work of curious forum members and that without forum discussion fostering it, there'd be no bloggers talking about it. In less than a year, the discussion has gone from everyone accepting that a tight mouth and steep iron was the only way to mitigate tearout to, hopefully, everyone accepting that you can do the same thing with an inexpensive common pitch plane.
6) there are better places to get advice about it than bloggers (Kees' blog notwithstanding), and anyone who tells you it's tedious...as warren pointed out half a decade ago...doesn't know what they think they know.

This came about mostly because I was talking to george offline and I mentioned that I saw a lot of static crediting the origin of all of this to the wrong place. As in it was being attributed to people who had nothing to do with it, those people didn't attribute it to themselves. I don't think anyone saw my forum post and claimed credit or accepted it, I'm not that vain. I think they probably saw the video that was unearthed by Bill and Steve's labor. And without Warren, there would've probably been no drive to find information. Mark Hennebury would've worked in obscurity, too, as far as the forums go (and mark fully understood the use of the second iron because supersurfacers use them). Without Bill Tindall and Steve Elliot, the work Kato and Kawai did would not have been shown to us. Without warren's talk about double irons all the time, and without warren torching expensive planes at WIA with a cheap plane, I wouldn't have had any interest in following up, either.

I wouldn't have said anything about it, but George was nice enough to. It did bother me that the discussion was turning toward crediting people discovering something that was actually a collective forum effort, and the advice coming from elsewhere wasn't as good as the advice that we've already put out there.

If anyone is bothered that we think knowing where things came from is important, that's OK. If anyone is bothered that George thinks we should get information that's as accurate as possible, that's OK. If anyone is bothered that I think the same thing as george thinks, that's OK, too. I'd hope what comes of it is that we collectively realize that the forums (any of them that get involved in rigorous discussion, some generally don't) where rigorous discussion occurs are likely to have the greatest breadth, depth and accuracy of information...once you know where to go on them to get it.

(perhaps we can close it out at that and not have any more back and forth not related to cap irons.....well, don't confuse me with one of those type of members who likes to tell anyone else what they can do. maybe we can dig up another whopper next year as a group. This year it was cap irons, it still excites me to use $14 of plane and replacement iron and get the same results I've gotten with planes costing 40 times that much. What warren said, we finally have the tools to "get it" more easily.)

Thank you so much, David, for taking it upon yourself to round out this thread for us all, and to summarily declare its conclusion. It's an interesting version of events for sure, especially given what's missing in light of your penchant for accuracy, but that's OK.

[george wilson]

Phillip,please PM me about what's missing in David's version of events. I am curious.

[John Coloccia]

My general suggestion to people is to keep a beginner's mind and forget about whether someone belongs to the woodworking cognoscenti or not. Try for yourself and see if it works. Yeah, when someone like George says something I listen up because he has quite a proven track record of techniques that obviously work, but I still try it for myself before taking it as gospel.

Chris Schwarz needs to grow thicker skin. I wonder if Tommy deleted his bookmarks to Chris' blog because Chris dared post a video response? I generally like Chris' writings and I find them enjoyable, but I wish he'd grow up a bit. He's positioned himself as an expert, and time and time again he's also positioned himself as an iconoclast. Well, he's the icon now and you have to expect criticism, right or wrong. No big deal. He should be careful just simply dismissing forums like this because his feelings are a little hurt. It seems awfully foolish to close your mind to a major resource like this. It also seems foolish to put people in a position where they feel they have to choose between you and a forum because you've setup a little mini-feud. This is not a difficult choice for me.

[george wilson]

I need to grow a thicker skin.too,John. Maybe my work makes some gurus nervous,so I get excluded. That's not self aggrandizement ,I think it just might be fact. It has happened before in different places.

You are wise to try things for yourself. I sent a violin off with a prospective customer. I had MADE the varnish,and rubbed it carefully everywhere,and I mean everywhere. This customer took it to an "80 year old expert". The "Expert" thought the varnish was polyurethane,sprayed on. Solely based on the age of this "expert",the customer leaned towards his conclusion. That's what I got for doing extra careful work!! I should have left brush marks,I suppose!! I made him send the violin right back,and sold it to someone who had the ears to appreciate it. I showed them my varnish making supplies,too. The other customer was left playing a violin made by an apprentice of mine,which was where he belonged. Man!!! Did I hate some things about the musical instrument making business!!!!

My point is,even the most aged,expert seeming person can be completely full of it!! But,words are cheap.

[John A. Callaway]

David, thanks for the summary.
John, I absolutely agree with you.
George, you have worked your life in this stuff, and you have proven your knowledge and ability with every picture and discussion of your work. As much as I appreciate schwarz trying to publish books ( of which i have every one he has written or published, and there are several more in the works I do intend to buy, particularly the Studley tool chest book ) about the history of the work and it's tools, he seems to avoid some of the " well knowns " of the Internet community like yourself. That is unfortunate I think. His writing style is very enjoyable to read, and both of you seem to share a some what similar sense of humor and and a very non conformist approach to some of the traditional parts of the craft. The two of you could probably produce some great books. And I agree with you, to some of those in the limelight, the caliber of your work and your knowldedge of their work ( what it takes to produce it correctly ) might be a little frightening, or at least off putting, which from a publishing stand point ( be it magazines or books or videos ) I would think they would spend a fair amount of time trying to pull information out of you, not ignoring you or becoming nervous because you are trying to insure accuracy of print.

[David Weaver]

Someone sent me a PM and told me that Graham Blackburn has been teaching a class about using double irons at WIA for a while longer than this came up on the internet. Maybe graham is the second woodworker Raney Nelson was referring to when he told us he's only ever met two people who claimed to use the cap iron to control tearout (one of them was Warren). Why didn't that advice ever make it out to the forums?

Grahams instruction material that I've seen is old school, just bang it out pragmatism (as in, it's good). Would it have had a better chance of getting out here before we bothered ourselves with it if someone else talked about it? If there's any type of the folks out there who would've instructed it's use, I'm not surprised that it would come from GB. I'm disappointed that there apparently was enough interest in it for a large enough group of people for it to have become regular advice, though. Why wouldn't people repeat it, did they not want to get bogged down in trying to communicate how someone would use it?

[Phillip Dejardin]

Phillip,please PM me about what's missing in David's version of events. I am curious.
Since you've asked, George, I'll highlight just a few examples of this thread's history that may have been missed. A fuller sense of this thread entails reading the entire thing in context, which is always a good idea. In fact, it's also a good idea even when reading blogs, woodworking magazine articles, watching PBS woodworking shows, etc. Nevertheless, as you, David and others have pointed out, it's importatnt to give folks proper credit for their contributions.

#5 (George Wilson) - I know there are OTHER BLOGGERS who take older information and try to make it their own. Seems if you don't have a blog,or a good way to self promote yourself,a guy could get taken advantage of!!

#6 (David Weaver) - I don't make any money off of anything, so nobody can really take advantage of me, but I sure wish most folks would take advantage of the real experts on the forums.

#41 (Charlie Stanford) - I doubt the saws themselves appreciate the Close Encounters of the Schwarz Kind with the floor, either.

#55 (George Wilson) - Sorry,neither David or I live in "the Schwarz World". I've been at this when he was kicking the slats out of his crib(actually long before that: My daughter is 45).

#56 (David Weaver) - I haven't been at it that long, but there is a drastic difference in the shows when someone like Peter Ross or Brian Boggs is on vs. Schwarz. Someone has to tell beginners what they're doing, I guess, and our discussions on here might be too esoteric in general. But I want to watch the guys with skill, the ones who inspire me to be able to work with the same accuracy and efficiency.

#63 (David Weaver) - Chris does do a good job publishing. I like a lot of his publishing efforts as long as they are books written by someone else. And I don't mean that as a slight, I think it's perfectly fair to say I'd like a book written by an expert and edited/published by someone who is an expert at the latter.

#84 (David Weaver) - Actually, if it makes him a little more cautious and points him more toward publishing and finding experts to provide the information, that wouldn't be negative at all. It doesn't seem to have had that effect, though.

[Chris Griggs]

And lets not forget!!!!!! How dare you either of you comment on the wonderful man that was Bob Ross!!!!


I can't tell the difference. And what's with Monet's hair?


Happy little tribes. Happy little blogs. Happy little chipbreakers. And a titanium white plane iron for all. :)

[David Weaver]

Don't forget that the end of the world is coming, too!! It's only a couple of days.

[Wilbur Pan]

Grahams instruction material that I've seen is old school, just bang it out pragmatism (as in, it's good). Would it have had a better chance of getting out here before we bothered ourselves with it if someone else talked about it? If there's any type of the folks out there who would've instructed it's use, I'm not surprised that it would come from GB. I'm disappointed that there apparently was enough interest in it for a large enough group of people for it to have become regular advice, though. Why wouldn't people repeat it, did they not want to get bogged down in trying to communicate how someone would use it?

I think it's important to keep in mind that although the information on how to best use double irons has been around for probably as long as there have been double irons, there's a big difference between having possession of that knowledge, and being able to effectively transmit that knowledge. The two have very different skill sets.

I think the Kato-Kawai film is a good example of that. This video has been available before on the internet, if you knew where to look, but it didn't gain very much traction. I think one key thing that made it a buzz topic this summer was that an English translation for the audio, which was in Japanese, was made available, thanks to Mia Iwasaki. Having the translation for the audio sure helped me see this video in a way that I hadn't before, and I'm sure that also catalyzed a lot of the ensuing discussion.

[Phillip Dejardin]

Don't forget that the end of the world is coming, too!! It's only a couple of days.

This week's forcast

248406

[David Cockey]

Some of the previously available sources of information:

Garrett Hack, The Handplane Book, Taunton Press, 1999, pages 71, 72, 162

"Ideally, the cap iron should be as far from the cutting edge as the thickness of the shavings you expect to make." p 71

"Adjust the cap iron just back from the cutting edge for a smoothing plane and fine shavings" p 72

"There are two final things to check while tuning a smoothing plane: First, that the cap iron lies flat ast the iron close to the cutting edge, ...... Hone the underside of the cap iron .... and set it very close to the cutting edge" p 162


Tage Frid, Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking, Volume 1, Taunton Press, 1979

"The function of the chipbreaker is to prevent the blade from tearing up the surface of the wood. If the chipbreaker is set too far away from the cutting edge of the blade, you might as well use the plane without the chipbreaker. For normal use the chipbreaker should sit back around 1/32 in. [0.8 mm] For rough work move it back slightly; for fine work, such as planing curly woods, move it closer to the edge." page 33 emphasis added

[David Weaver]

I think it's important to keep in mind that although the information on how to best use double irons has been around for probably as long as there have been double irons, there's a big difference between having possession of that knowledge, and being able to effectively transmit that knowledge. The two have very different skill sets.

I think the Kato-Kawai film is a good example of that. This video has been available before on the internet, if you knew where to look, but it didn't gain very much traction. I think one key thing that made it a buzz topic this summer was that an English translation for the audio, which was in Japanese, was made available, thanks to Mia Iwasaki. Having the translation for the audio sure helped me see this video in a way that I hadn't before, and I'm sure that also catalyzed a lot of the ensuing discussion.

The trouble with the K&K video, I believe, was that it was linked from a university yamagata website in japanese, so there was no way that any of us would've found it. Despite being viewable to the public, we never would've seen it because google wouldn't pick it up if you search in english. Someone who spoke japanese would've needed to chance their way into it and told us about it and provided a link. I'm not sure what tipped off Bill and Steve to dig it up, do you remember? Maybe someone got a hold of some literature with pictures first, or maybe it had to do with Steve's search on the edge wear information that came along with it. Bill probably told me, but I can't remember.

[Jason Coen]

Don't forget that the end of the world is coming, too!! It's only a couple of days.

This could be worse than Y2K. :(

[Zach Dillinger]

This could be worse than Y2K. :(

It would pretty much have to be... of course a hang nail was worse than Y2K

[David Weaver]

Some of the previously available sources of information:

Garrett Hack, The Handplane Book, Taunton Press, 1999, pages 71, 72, 162

"Ideally, the cap iron should be as far from the cutting edge as the thickness of the shavings you expect to make." p 71

"Adjust the cap iron just back from the cutting edge for a smoothing plane and fine shavings" p 72

"There are two final things to check while tuning a smoothing plane: First, that the cap iron lies flat ast the iron close to the cutting edge, ...... Hone the underside of the cap iron .... and set it very close to the cutting edge" p 162


Tage Frid, Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking, Volume 1, Taunton Press, 1979

"The function of the chipbreaker is to prevent the blade from tearing up the surface of the wood. If the chipbreaker is set too far away from the cutting edge of the blade, you might as well use the plane without the chipbreaker. For normal use the chipbreaker should sit back around 1/32 in. [0.8 mm] For rough work move it back slightly; for fine work, such as planing curly woods, move it closer to the edge." page 33 emphasis added

Someone brought up planecraft, a popular science (? maybe that wasn't the one) and several others, too, after we started talking about it and the video was out. Thanks for adding to the list.

Maybe this goes to what Wilbur is saying, how specific does it have to be before we put it in practice the same way warren describes it (which is sort of scorched earth, like "no tearout since 1975"). Every time warren said that, we heard crickets...or arguments against it. I guess we didn't grasp it until there was a number (and anyone who tried to set a cap iron the thickness of the chip from the edge probably found themselves bulled by their planes, warren mentioned never needing to set it so close and the negative effect that has on surface quality. It's a delicate in-between of experience to get it to work but not have a negative effect on the surface, but one that's ultimately easy with a little bit of experience.

I haven't used anything but a cheap smoother now since May or june, i'm not sure. But like warren says, no tearout.

At any rate, at least the discussion seems to have turned now when someone says "I want to use some fancy wood, what plane should I buy to work it?". That's a good thing.

[David Weaver]

This week's forcast

248406

Perfect!!!

[David Weaver]

It would pretty much have to be...

Yeah, it has to be. Even as it was told, y2k was going to just be no more use of computers, widespread outages and anarchy. And that was before people even had to be worried about the chance they wouldn't be able to use their iphone.

We're all going to be burned up later this week....that's bad!! Even Bob Ross can't save us.

[Jason Coen]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/USPcompact/9bb7eaed7d4d4bd575707ce152f6106e.jpg

Charles Holtzapffel, Turning and Mechanical Manipulation, 18​43.

[Harold Burrell]

Don't forget that the end of the world is coming, too!! It's only a couple of days.

Oh, good...

Maybe I'll finally be able to get some rest...

[Jason Coen]

It would pretty much have to be... of course a hang nail was worse than Y2K

I am a veteran of the Cola Wars. I am prepared for Mayan Destruction Day, Part 1.

[george wilson]

Phillip,you recited things that have been said in this thread. Doles that mean that David is forgetting things? I don't understand.

[John Coloccia]

I prepared by buying a can of tomato soup. But then I got hungry and I ate it. Now I am completely unprepared again, but I have a nice warm belly full of soup.

[David Weaver]

Phillip,you recited things that have been said in this thread. Doles that mean that David is forgetting things? I don't understand.

Yeah, those were the parts I left out because, well, they were not related to using the cap iron generally, or where the internet push for it came from.

[David Weaver]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/USPcompact/9bb7eaed7d4d4bd575707ce152f6106e.jpg

Charles Holtzapffel, Turning and Mechanical Manipulation, 18​43.

That's good stuff right there! Do you know when you looked it up, which of the three volumes that was, or what page that was? I have the IIIrd of those books, but haven't gotten through all of it yet.

[David Barnett]

Deleted due to excessive nonsequiterization

[Mansell Bettez]

Sorry, I'm lost. I normally don't post, I just enjoy reading all the wonderful posts here. But is all this fuss over the CS blog post "Chipbreakers: The No. 6 Way to Reduce Tear-out" posted in 2007 (which links to the Kato study)? or is it from something more recent.

Thanks,
Manse

[george wilson]

It looks like Holtz. is giving quite a range of settings for the cap iron,though. Even a 50/th.of an inch isn't that close. It's .020,not .005". Then,he says BETWEEN that and 1/16". Unless you were taking off a whopping thick shaving,the chip breaker wouldn't be much use. The author's great(really huge!) forte was in making those very complex rose engines,fine turning tools,and some other tools. He even made a cast iron plane for blacksmiths with a vertical,heavy blade,for planing metal!!

Maybe he wasn't as expert on this subject?

[Zach Dillinger]

I prepared by buying a can of tomato soup. But then I got hungry and I ate it. Now I am completely unprepared again, but I have a nice warm belly full of soup.

That'll be gone by Friday... then what will you do? WHAT WILL YOU DO!!!?!?!?!

Sorry to hi-jack for a moment. Truthfully, I believe in being prepared, not for made up things like this, but for real natural disasters. Nothing wrong with having 20 or 30 gallons of water plus non-perishables on hand.

[David Weaver]

Sorry, I'm lost. I normally don't post, I just enjoy reading all the wonderful posts here. But is all this fuss over the CS blog post "Chipbreakers: The No. 6 Way to Reduce Tear-out" posted in 2007 (which links to the Kato study)? or is it from something more recent.

Thanks,
Manse

I think it was from something in the middle of this year.

[Jason Coen]

That's good stuff right there! Do you know when you looked it up, which of the three volumes that was, or what page that was? I have the IIIrd of those books, but haven't gotten through all of it yet.

That's Vol. II, page 481. I actually ran across it in Roberts' book, but the print was awfully small there. There are a couple other instances of a cap iron being mentioned that are rattling around in my head that I need to chase down.

[David Weaver]

It looks like Holtz. is giving quite a range of settings for the cap iron,though. Even a 50/th.of an inch isn't that close. It's .020,not .005". Then,he says BETWEEN that and 1/16". Unless you were taking off a whopping thick shaving,the chip breaker wouldn't be much use. The author's great(really huge!) forte was in making those very complex rose engines,fine turning tools,and some other tools. He even made a cast iron plane for blacksmiths with a vertical,heavy blade,for planing metal!!

Maybe he wasn't as expert on this subject?

I don't think they probably measured it. What was his business, Turning? I don't know that much about the books because ornamental turning isn't something I would do, Jewelry, same...I got book III on Joel's suggestion because he noticed I had an interest in the stones that were excerpted from the book.

50th of an inch is probably a good set on a jointer. Half of that is still a thick chip in a medium hardwood, which is probably where the working sweet spot would be (half the chip thickness or a little less).

[David Weaver]

That's Vol. II, page 481. I actually ran across it in Roberts' book, but the print was awfully small there. There are a couple other instances of a cap iron being mentioned that are rattling around in my head that I need to chase down.

Warren dug them up, too, but I don't remember that one - he probably did. We were too busy believing some of the makers who make single iron planes, though, especially after figuring that a tight mouth smoother with a steep angle will not allow much damage to occur. As charles mentioned, though, it limits you to fairly fine shavings.

[Jason Coen]

It looks like Holtz. is giving quite a range of settings for the cap iron,though. Even a 50/th.of an inch isn't that close. It's .020,not .005". Then,he says BETWEEN that and 1/16". Unless you were taking off a whopping thick shaving,the chip breaker wouldn't be much use. The author's great(really huge!) forte was in making those very complex rose engines,fine turning tools,and some other tools. He even made a cast iron plane for blacksmiths with a vertical,heavy blade,for planing metal!!

Maybe he wasn't as expert on this subject?

Maybe. While not explicitly stated in that section, in the preceding and following paragraphs he's describing the action of a blade and its settings in a jack plane.

I found his distance estimates to be less enlightening than his description of the function of the cap iron. He clearly is conveying the idea that the cap iron is intended to reduce tearout, and doing such more effectively the "closer it is down".

[Jason Coen]

Warren dug them up, too, but I don't remember that one - he probably did. We were too busy believing some of the makers who make single iron planes, though, especially after figuring that a tight mouth smoother with a steep angle will not allow much damage to occur. As charles mentioned, though, it limits you to fairly fine shavings.

I need to read some over there. This is the only WW'ing forum I frequent, and only one of three or so in total (a college football forum, a duck hunting forum, and AR15.com being the others). The new baby is allowing more time to read, though, so I'll do some reading to see if what I'm remembering has been covered.

[David Weaver]

The language about the plane pushing harder is valuable, too. The first time I argued about this with Warren was somewhere around 2008, maybe, and I set a cap iron close (after someone lent me the fresh and new Charlesworth video about applying a steep back bevel to a bench plane iron as a competing idea) and complained that the plane was too hard to push. I set it too close, I didn't know it. I set it further back and still had tearout. And gave up. The steep angle idea works fine, too, for hardwoods that tolerate that high pitch. Very well, and it's quick.

(as an aside, I remember getting that video, and getting fixated on the instructions for rolling a deadly accurate burr on the scraper plane irons, that's another one that's worthwhile for everyone to see).

[David Weaver]

I need to read some over there. This is the only WW'ing forum I frequent, and only one of three or so in total (a college football forum, a duck hunting forum, and AR15.com being the others). The new baby is allowing more time to read, though, so I'll do some reading to see if what I'm remembering has been covered.

Congratulations on the baby. Every step in the process is great - kids are the best thing in the world. The reading time gets harder to find after they become mobile and learn the word "no!!". Enjoy it while it's there.

WC can be crickets for a while sometimes, and other times there can be lively discussions.

Bill and Steve (same criminals, different crime) long ago were pounding the ground about powder metal tools. Maybe it was steve first, I don't know...ten years ago? Those discussions were/are like the double and single iron discussions. The same discussion like it was on a record on repeat, and the teams were the same every time (if you know what i mean, including Charlie in the middle taking shots at both sides). It appears now that powder metal has a firm commercial hold, though.

But like here, the discussions are thorough and progressive and it offers something beyond the "what plane should I buy", and "who's going to WIA this year" discussions, but still those are there, too.

[Jim Koepke]

I think it was from something in the middle of this year.

This may be the post of the video. It started a discussion about setting chip breakers.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?185924-Video-of-a-cap-iron-at-work-and-discussion-about-the-cap

The interesting thing may be that many people may have already been setting their chip breakers for optimum result without knowing the science, only the effect.

Searching through older threads here on SMC indicates we have danced around this many a time.

Before the video, there wasn't good empirical evidence to point at.

jtk

[Niels Cosman]

What is this "discussion" all about?
There are 13 pages of heated back and forths about who said what and when, summaries of previous discussion, personal attacks, appologies, and now eschatology.
I have bitten my tongue reading all of this but I have to say that I think that you all should just step away from you keyboards.

This is an intervention.

I find this whole thread disappointing and unproductive. I think that everyone should take a deep breath and ask what is the function of these forums and blogs and magazines and books. Is it not the exchange of ideas and information? Yes, sometimes ideas change and sometimes information is not accurate. Deal with it. It's my personal belief It's always better that there is MORE information and opinions than LESS. That's why we all have brains that we should use to decypher the wheat from the chaff.
We are all at different stages in our journey through craft, those of the the more enlightened in the group should step back to the time when they had less experience and there was less information. Were you better off or was it an obstacle to your improvement?
For 12 years I have been working with glass, here is a craft where the majority of information is transmitted from person to person. I am deeply greatful for all of the people that have generously shared their skill and experience with me. There are very few books, videos, and forums on the subject (there are no blogs). Gaining new skill and seeing new techniques requires a great amount of personal effort and cost. You all should realize how lucky you are to be woodworkers in a world where there is so much information at your fingertips, for free.

I am a teacher. I don't claim to know everything about the things that I teach, but I try my best to give my students the best information that I have and do my best to put forth my best efforts in demonstration. I also recognize that it is often better to inspire and to generate interest rather than dump information or technique. I don't waste precious classroom giving credit to every person from whom I learn something from, the list is too long. Students have the rest of their lives to refine technique and gain skill. If they are enthusiastic and can maintain that enthusiasm, they will be driven to teach themselves new things or seek out the people that can show them the things I cannot.

We are all students. We should aspire to never lose sight of that beginner's mind.

One a last note: people like Chris Schwarz, Roy Underhill, Norm Abrams etc... Were the people that got me interested and enthused about woodworking and continue to jog my thinking about craft (not just woodworking). I have a great respect for the accomplishments of many people in these forums, and I have been inspired my works that I have seen here. I am also indebted to the generosity of those who post and contribute their insights and experience. However the tone of threads like this are both discouraging and uninteresting. Something to think about. I have nothing more to say.

[bob blakeborough]

^^^THIS!!!^^^

Now before I say what I am going to say, understand I truly appreciate all the contributions that everybody makes to these forums and I bear no ill will towards anybody, BUT, I am noticing these days that more and more people seem to be actively pursuing acknowledgement for their contributions to the community as if it is a giant competition to see who is more popular and revered by everyone else. It is becoming more and more about who did what first and who said what before the other guy. It is growing tiresome. I too am simply a newbie who enjoys learning. My enjoyment is really declining with the swelling head syndrome rearing itself these days...

There is no specific finger pointing at any person in this observation. I actively participate in many online forums and I am noticing this more and more everywhere... Not just here.

[David Weaver]

George, I don't know if you said yet, but who is it working with you in this picture? Is it marcus?

[David Weaver]

As it is, if we could get the thread pared to the first 35 posts or so and the last few that have posted literary references, it would be pretty good. Not that I want to impose that on Dave, it would probably be easier for him to just torch it as a lot of it isn't too productive for non-wrestling purposes. (Vince McMahon may be interested in how well it draws heat, though).

If a couple of people with tight wallets thinking of buying a high angle plane saw it, though, still good in the end.

[David Cockey]

As it is, if we could get the thread pared to the first 35 posts or so and the last few that have posted literary references, it would be pretty good. Not that I want to impose that on Dave, it would probably be easier for him to just torch it as a lot of it isn't too productive for non-wrestling purposes. (Vince McMahon may be interested in how well it draws heat, though).

If a couple of people with tight wallets thinking of buying a high angle plane saw it, though, still good in the end.

Also lose the first two paragraphs of the first post. Without them the tone would have been much more positive.

[george wilson]

It's Jon,David.

[David Cockey]

There appear to be several approaches to eliminating tearout:


One approach is to use a plane with a chipbreaker and set the chipbreaker very close to the edge, within a shaving thickness or so. If the plane tends to clog then opening the throat may be needed.



Another approach is close the throat to not much wider than a shaving, and use a higher angle for the cutting surface if need. This approach avoids clogging by use of a "single" iron plane or with a plane with a chipbreaker the chipbreaker is set well back from the edge.


My recollection of reading various experts on woodworking for better than three decades is the chipbreaker close to the edge approach was commonly advocated in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Then it fell out of favor to the tight mouth and high angle approach. Now the chipbreaker close to the edge approach is making a resurgence.

Perhaps the "truth" is that both approaches can work to prevent tearout. There may even be a continuim of combinations of chipbreaker to edge distance and throat openings which will prevent tearout, but for a particular set of throat opening geometry and chipbreaker shape only some of these combinations will work without clogging.

[george wilson]

Agreed. This thread has gone on too long.

[David Weaver]

It's Jon,David.

I hope Jon wouldn't be offended by my guess!

[David Weaver]

Agreed. This thread has gone on too long.

It's too bad, because there was some very interesting literature posted in it. Maybe we could get the thread torched and put the info in a new thread.

[bob blakeborough]

It's too bad, because there was some very interesting literature posted in it. Maybe we could get the thread torched and put the info in a new thread.Rather than completely torching it, maybe just close it to further posts. Disagreements or not as to what was said aside, there was still some good discussions. Leaving it for people to read is not a bad thing...

[Jason Coen]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/USPcompact/a7cebe16ea81e927eb0350ef2e025b89.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/USPcompact/29cd040a31bb5dfa4473a341d85ce417.jpg
English Mechanic and World of Science, Volume LV., 1892.

[Cameron James]

I recall feeling quite disappointed when I read Chris Schwarz' blog that there was no mention of those centrally involved in the discussions (primarily here, at WoodCentral and WoodNet). Indeed, there was a LOT of discussion and video and pictorials, efforts to test different parameters, and opinions one way and the other before CS posted on his blog. I read Chris' posts and enjoy his insights. He has contributed a great deal to the WW community, and readers look up to him. When he did not provide names and more information, the impression left is that these important others were unimportant to the conclusions reached. I do not think that was his intention, but it was taken that way when you read the subsequent postings on a few forums (e.g. "Chip breakers by Chris Schwarz" appeared on WoodNet).

As David (C) states, this was an exciting discovery. Notably, it seems not to have been a discovery for some, who claim it as old hat. I started a thread on the Australian Forum, posting some of the pictorial research I had done (and posted here as well), only to get comments from some "old timers" who were irritated by this, as if it were proof that the world of WW forums was populated by amateurs. This is a reason why I admire David so much - for someone of his stature to come out and openly admit he did not know and that this changed the way he thought, well that is just stupendous. Thank you again David.

Regards from Perth

Derek

It is obvious to whom you are referring to, Chippy, since he is not here to answer for himself, partly because he hasn't been on the internet long, at least not looking on forums, so I will put a word in for him since I have known him for a long time. I dont think he considers himself an "old timer" I'm pretty sure he doesn't appreciate that! , ' I still have a way to go for that' or 'not this his year maybe next year' he says with wry smile on his face, next year he will say the same thing no doubt, although perhaps you were not being kind about it anyway?.

He's not actually that old but what he is though is one of the most experienced qualified carpenters and joiners and cabinet makers (of fine furniture) your ever likely to meet. If he was in continental Europe he would probably be called a Master however that term (qualification) isnt used in Australia as I understand it. To say he is modest at what he has done or is doing is an understatement, he excels at understating what he has done. There are probably people like him everywhere but I dont know of anybody that spans the range of work he does or has done, everything from new homes and furniture to custom fine furniture and working on heritage homes, government listed heritage buildings, Government House in Adelaide, libraries, rooms with wall to wall bookcases and wainscoting, staircases just to name a few. He has indentured and trained many apprentices (in Australia thats a 4 year commitment it used to be 5), something that is less common for tradesman to take on themselves over the years around here, its speaks volumes for the guy to take the responsibility and is a world apart from someone taking some money for a lesson and then saying they taught hundreds or thousands of people as some of the guru's do. He has also employed and further trained countless other qualified Carpenters, Joiners, Cabinet Makers and has been offered positions to teach at Technical college, as recent as the past few weeks he was offered another position. My point being if Chippy says that Carpenters, Joiners and Cabinet Makers are taught about the function and use of the cap iron [here] its probably worth listening to him! I've been on jobs with him (watching mostly) and he gives an apprentice a task knowing he will 'stuff' it up, he says to me 'he will be back in five minutes then he will listen', when they stop arguing or thinking they ''know'' then he can teach them.

AFAIK he wasn't irritated at your pictorials or basis for the article (he said he liked you taking the effort to show it), he was irritated because you claimed that Carpenters and Cabinet Makers are not taught about cap irons and how to use them (its edited out now), its obvious he is in a position to be able to offer a reasonable opinion, but you argued that there is no documentation so therefor it can not be true. He mentioned some Australian texts that point to the function and use of cap iron and distance to set, at least one of those texts are still used in the Australian high school education system, but you didnt respond, he also spoke to a high school woodwork teacher and confirmed that they still teach it. The other point was the way you first wrote the post/article it read like you discovered it and were enlightening everyone, you hadn't given credit to where you got your information (these forums etc) , since then the posts have been edited but to him (and no doubt others) at the time not being aware of these discussions on this forum or others it appeared arrogant and false. Well before this topic came to light he mentioned that Mr CS doesn't set his plane up correctly e.g cap iron and was baffled how he could teach others to use handtools when he still has a lot of learning to do, from his point of view it was probably a gruff but fair comment, but instead of listening people get defensive and think its about having a go at someone. So, no he didnt say that the internet is [only] populated by ammeters but that there appears to be a lot of people unduly taking or given credit or exaggerating their expertise. On the other hand I know he admires work done by many on the internet.

Having said all that Chippy is good bloke, even if some of his comments might come across on a forum as short, he is generous to a fault, has incredible patients (probably has to teaching apprentices) and would help anybody with anything so long as they are polite.



Kind Regards
Cameron

[seth lowden]

Jason, thanks for the screen shots. I searched for that reference and looked it over a bit more. Very interesting stuff!

I appreciate this thread being allowed to continue and run its course. Sometimes things need to be said/written, and not everyone is a seasoned diplomat- so toes get stepped on a little.

[Wilbur Pan]

The trouble with the K&K video, I believe, was that it was linked from a university yamagata website in japanese, so there was no way that any of us would've found it. Despite being viewable to the public, we never would've seen it because google wouldn't pick it up if you search in english. Someone who spoke japanese would've needed to chance their way into it and told us about it and provided a link. I'm not sure what tipped off Bill and Steve to dig it up, do you remember? Maybe someone got a hold of some literature with pictures first, or maybe it had to do with Steve's search on the edge wear information that came along with it. Bill probably told me, but I can't remember.

The video is also on Mark Hennebury's site (http://www.solidwoodmachinery.com/flashvideopage.htm), and my understanding is that it was there for a while, although it's not obvious from the home page that the video is there. Bill and Steve did the legwork to figure out that Kato and Kawai were working on this subject, and got copies of their papers and a high quality version of the video. Mia Iwasaki did the translation of the audio. Bill sent me the video and Mia's translation, and I edited it into an English subtitled version (http://giantcypress.net/post/23159548132/this-is-the-full-version-of-the-video-created-by). And as Bill mentioned, this was all worth the effort if for no other reason that the video is hosted in another location on the internet that is more easily accessible, and it won't be lost again.

This version of the video has had over 7,300 views since the subtitling. That's not a bad outreach for a somewhat esoteric woodworking subject. Without knowing the metrics, I'd guess that this is a lot more traffic than the original releases of the video either on the University Yamagata website or on Mark's website.

[Jason Coen]

Jason, thanks for the screen shots. I searched for that reference and looked it over a bit more. Very interesting stuff!

I appreciate this thread being allowed to continue and run its course. Sometimes things need to be said/written, and not everyone is a seasoned diplomat- so toes get stepped on a little.

Hi Seth, my pleasure. Glad you found it interesting. :)

[David Weaver]

The video is also on Mark Hennebury's site (http://www.solidwoodmachinery.com/flashvideopage.htm), and my understanding is that it was there for a while, although it's not obvious from the home page that the video is there. Bill and Steve did the legwork to figure out that Kato and Kawai were working on this subject, and got copies of their papers and a high quality version of the video. Mia Iwasaki did the translation of the audio. Bill sent me the video and Mia's translation, and I edited it into an English subtitled version (http://giantcypress.net/post/23159548132/this-is-the-full-version-of-the-video-created-by). And as Bill mentioned, this was all worth the effort if for no other reason that the video is hosted in another location on the internet that is more easily accessible, and it won't be lost again.

This version of the video has had over 7,300 views since the subtitling. That's not a bad outreach for a somewhat esoteric woodworking subject. Without knowing the metrics, I'd guess that this is a lot more traffic than the original releases of the video either on the University Yamagata website or on Mark's website.

Wait, just one more thing (sorry, I watched columbo the other day).

Just to clarify a few things, I went back through my april emails (I just don't have that good of a memory to get the events right without it) and Steve was nice enough to separately give me some background on information that I didn't have. The videos were not publicly accessible before Bill and Steve got a hold of the professors, I was wrong about that.

* Bill got wind that the study information was posted in japanese journals (through steve, who posted stuff from the papers in 2005). Some of the papers were translated to english and posted in japan a long time ago. Bill wanted more of them, I guess. Incidentally, Steve told me Brent Beach originally made him aware of the documents that had been posted in English.
* In the quest to find the japanese versions of the journals, Bill incidentally came in contact with Kato and Kawai.
* As a favor to Bill, when K&K provided the papers, they posted their videos on the university of yamagata website (they were not posted anywhere before then).
* Bill provided the link to Mark Hennebury in April, and Mark posted the video from K&K's link on his site.
* the translation stuff happened after that

[Steve Bates]

WOW!!!

I've been fighting basswood for awhile. Being a newbie, I'm frustrated a lot because everything is a learning experience. I read, reckon, and go screw up wood. I'm trying to make that nail-in-wood puzzler that's on "The Woodwright's Shop-Wood and Water" episode for the grandkids. He states basswood is good for compressing when wet.

I'm trying for good finishes with a plane but I continually have tearout. This video sure has opened my eyes! The audio just flew over my head. :D

Thanks a lot for this information! I reckon now I'll have better luck tomorrow.

[Derek Cohen]

The other point was the way you first wrote the post/article it read like you discovered it and were enlightening everyone, you hadn't given credit to where you got your information (these forums etc) , since then the posts have been edited but to him (and no doubt others) at the time not being aware of these discussions on this forum or others it appeared arrogant and false.

Cameron, I do take exception to your misrepresentation of what I wrote. This is the link to my post:

http://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/chip-breakers-not-cap-irons-what-they-really-do-153175/

And this is the first two paragraphs I wrote:

On a few woodworking forums - in the USA and UK - there has been ongoing discussion that has certainly changed my awareness about tuning BD double-ironed planes.

It started with Bill Tindall, a member of WoodCentral, re-discovering a video by Professor Yasunori Kawai and Honorary Professor Chutaro Kato at Yamagata University, as part of their research in the role of cap irons in planing. I recall viewing this some years ago, but the true significance was lost on me as it was all in Japanese. I include a link to the video (on the blog of Wilbur Pan, has added English subtitles added (it runs for 17 minutes)):

Secondly, regardless whom I referred to - I mentioned no names and gave no references - the point was simply to emphasise that we were reinventing the wheel in our discussions, that this information was known to others in times past. Why do feel the need to twist the facts?

Regards from Perth .... actually San Francisco at this time

Derek

[Joe Bailey]

Won't someone please put this thread out of it's misery!

[Ethan Liou]

Jason, thanks for the screen shots. I searched for that reference and looked it over a bit more. Very interesting stuff!


I did the same thing. It is indeed very interesting. Thank you, Janson.

[Charlie Stanford]

It is obvious to whom you are referring to, Chippy, since he is not here to answer for himself, partly because he hasn't been on the internet long, at least not looking on forums, so I will put a word in for him since I have known him for a long time. I dont think he considers himself an "old timer" I'm pretty sure he doesn't appreciate that! , ' I still have a way to go for that' or 'not this his year maybe next year' he says with wry smile on his face, next year he will say the same thing no doubt, although perhaps you were not being kind about it anyway?.

He's not actually that old but what he is though is one of the most experienced qualified carpenters and joiners and cabinet makers (of fine furniture) your ever likely to meet. If he was in continental Europe he would probably be called a Master however that term (qualification) isnt used in Australia as I understand it. To say he is modest at what he has done or is doing is an understatement, he excels at understating what he has done. There are probably people like him everywhere but I dont know of anybody that spans the range of work he does or has done, everything from new homes and furniture to custom fine furniture and working on heritage homes, government listed heritage buildings, Government House in Adelaide, libraries, rooms with wall to wall bookcases and wainscoting, staircases just to name a few. He has indentured and trained many apprentices (in Australia thats a 4 year commitment it used to be 5), something that is less common for tradesman to take on themselves over the years around here, its speaks volumes for the guy to take the responsibility and is a world apart from someone taking some money for a lesson and then saying they taught hundreds or thousands of people as some of the guru's do. He has also employed and further trained countless other qualified Carpenters, Joiners, Cabinet Makers and has been offered positions to teach at Technical college, as recent as the past few weeks he was offered another position. My point being if Chippy says that Carpenters, Joiners and Cabinet Makers are taught about the function and use of the cap iron [here] its probably worth listening to him! I've been on jobs with him (watching mostly) and he gives an apprentice a task knowing he will 'stuff' it up, he says to me 'he will be back in five minutes then he will listen', when they stop arguing or thinking they ''know'' then he can teach them.

AFAIK he wasn't irritated at your pictorials or basis for the article (he said he liked you taking the effort to show it), he was irritated because you claimed that Carpenters and Cabinet Makers are not taught about cap irons and how to use them (its edited out now), its obvious he is in a position to be able to offer a reasonable opinion, but you argued that there is no documentation so therefor it can not be true. He mentioned some Australian texts that point to the function and use of cap iron and distance to set, at least one of those texts are still used in the Australian high school education system, but you didnt respond, he also spoke to a high school woodwork teacher and confirmed that they still teach it. The other point was the way you first wrote the post/article it read like you discovered it and were enlightening everyone, you hadn't given credit to where you got your information (these forums etc) , since then the posts have been edited but to him (and no doubt others) at the time not being aware of these discussions on this forum or others it appeared arrogant and false. Well before this topic came to light he mentioned that Mr CS doesn't set his plane up correctly e.g cap iron and was baffled how he could teach others to use handtools when he still has a lot of learning to do, from his point of view it was probably a gruff but fair comment, but instead of listening people get defensive and think its about having a go at someone. So, no he didnt say that the internet is [only] populated by ammeters but that there appears to be a lot of people unduly taking or given credit or exaggerating their expertise. On the other hand I know he admires work done by many on the internet.

Having said all that Chippy is good bloke, even if some of his comments might come across on a forum as short, he is generous to a fault, has incredible patients (probably has to teaching apprentices) and would help anybody with anything so long as they are polite.



Kind Regards
Cameron

Thank you kindly for this enlightening post.

[Metod Alif]

My confidence is shaken. Up till now I thought/believed that empirical evidence is the same as effects, and that science is about making connections between different pieces of effects - oops, empirical evidence.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Jason Coen]

So I'm making some banding packs for a Christmas present for the wife, and I've got a NASTY piece of yellow heart that I squared up and smoothed last night. I was making smoothing passes with a L-N bronze #4 with the 55° frog and getting the tiniest bit of tearout where the grain dips and dives like true mahogany is wont to do (rowey?). It's honestly a stretch to call it tearout, as it was just a minute roughness in the wood where the grain switched directions. If you looked directly at it you couldn't see it, but held up to a raking light it was visible. The cap iron was set back maybe a few thousandths, no more than 4, probably 3 or slightly less. Maybe 2? Dunno, never actually measured, but it's darn close.

That's all in preface to say that I switched back to a normal frog this morning, touched up the iron, and will give it a few more passes with the same cap iron setting. I'm pretty certain I know what will happen, but I figured I'd give it a go just for grins. :)

I'll report back later today...if we're still here! :eek:

[David Weaver]

I don't think you'll ever perfectly get rid of the contrasting roughness behind tiny knots, etc when a plane does such a nice job of making a shiny surface everywhere else. It won't look like much once you finish it, anyway.

Whether or not the common pitch plane improves or makes the roughness worse is a game of chance, depending on which way the straws are pointed where the grain changes direction. If nothing will satisfy, you can always scrape it and make the whole surface look a little duller and more uniform.

I would finish what you describe as it is, those areas where the grain points almost straight up can only be made totally uniform to stain or finish by sanding the surface and making it barfy all the way around, filling everything with dust and shredded trash.

[Jason Coen]

I don't think you'll ever perfectly get rid of the contrasting roughness behind tiny knots, etc when a plane does such a nice job of making a shiny surface everywhere else. It won't look like much once you finish it, anyway.

Whether or not the common pitch plane improves or makes the roughness worse is a game of chance, depending on which way the straws are pointed where the grain changes direction. If nothing will satisfy, you can always scrape it and make the whole surface look a little duller and more uniform.

I would finish what you describe as it is, those areas where the grain points almost straight up can only be made totally uniform to stain or finish by sanding the surface and making it barfy all the way around, filling everything with dust and shredded trash.

Yeah, it's more of a way to fiddle with a plane and see what changes make improvements in differing situations. The edge of the board has the nastiest grain, and you won't see that in a pack of banding, anyway. I'm betting there will be an improvement in the rowey areas simply because the lower effective cutting angle will give a cleaner cut of the fibers that are exiting 90° to the edge, but the improvement won't be drastic by any means.

[Jim Koepke]

I was making smoothing passes with a L-N bronze #4 with the 55° frog and getting the tiniest bit of tearout where the grain dips and dives like true mahogany is wont to do (rowey?).

My experience with this is that it can be corrected sometimes by planing against the grain.

Sharpen the blade as best you can. Set the CB close to the edge and set the plane for as thin a shaving as it can take. Then very lightly try a pass against the grain. This has sometimes worked for me. Sometimes it doesn't.

jtk

[Jason Coen]

My experience with this is that it can be corrected sometimespe by planing against the grain.

Sharpen the blade as best you can. Set the CB close to the edge and set the plane for as thin a shaving as it can take. Then very lightly try a pass against the grain. This has sometimes worked for me. Sometimes it doesn't.

jtk

That was my first plan of action. It did help some, but the grain coming up out of the board is fussy stuff.

I'm interested to see the difference between the common pitch frog and the half pitch frog. If there's little or none, I'll leave the common pitch frog installed. If I think about it, I'll do before/after pictures.

[Jonathan McCullough]

How do you reliably (repeatably?) set the chip breaker .002" - .006" from the blade edge? Butt the cutting edge against some wood and use a feeler gauge?

[george wilson]

Someone had suggested pushing the blade straight down on a piece of soft wood while tightening the CB. The blade would have penetrated the wood a slight amount,allowing the close setting.

[Jason Coen]

How do you reliably (repeatably?) set the chip breaker .002" - .006" from the blade edge? Butt the cutting edge against some wood and use a feeler gauge?

Mk1Mod0 eyeball.

[David Weaver]

How do you reliably (repeatably?) set the chip breaker .002" - .006" from the blade edge? Butt the cutting edge against some wood and use a feeler gauge?

Raking light on the back of the iron. If you can't see any light reflected from the back of the iron (it's shiny, and the chipbreaker should not be, or at least not be reflecting light in the same direction), then it's all the way on the edge. If you go just short of that, you'll see just a hair of edge shining back at you. That's a very close set, and you can work backwards from there until you get used to getting the look at the edge that you know won't cause problems but will still eliminate tearout.

it's easier than it sounds.

[Gabe Shackle]

Could one maybe just put the chip breaker flush to the edge of the blade. Then, place them both tip-down on a piece of soft wood and just slightly tip back towards the breaker? It seems like that would give you more control over the movement as well as consistency. For the ocd among us you could even setup an angled block as a jig to get the same offset every time.248490

[David Weaver]

You could do that, but I wouldn't set the breaker to the edge until the edge was already against the wood. If you accidentally overshoot the edge with the chipbreaker, you can damage it.

Once you've set it just by hand about a dozen times, you'll never overshoot the edge again.

Trust your eyes and hands, the light reflection will make it easy. Just partially tighten the chipbreaker to the iron so you can still move it but that it doesn't move on its own, set it just short of where you want it to end up and then tighten it (and it'll move just a half hair closer to the edge when you do that).

I thought it was difficult the first half dozen or dozen times, but it's not. It's literally a 15 second thing, and you're going to spend half that much just putting the iron and cap iron together, anyway.

[Chris Griggs]

I do it the way Dave does. There is a guy who posts here sometime, Bob Strawn I think, who recommends something like what Gabe just suggested but that never worked for me. Eyeballing for me is way easier. I have terrible shop lighting and it still works, whats important is the angle at which the light reflects off it. Ones you get it so the blade back is reflecting right into your eyes it's surprisingly easy to gauge variation is tiny distances.

[Tom McMahon]

As I understood the use of the second iron, the angle ground on the leading edge is just as important as the distance from the cutting edge. The distance from the cutting edge should match the thickness of the shaving you want to take. It's the angled bevel on the second iron where it meets the back of the blade that eliminates the tearout. I've done this with old Stanley #2,3,5,and 6 with great success on curly maple, knotty pine and ribbon strip mahogany. To make it work with my bronze LN #4 I had to hone a bevel on the front of the cap iron and open the month a little, there is however plenty of adjustment. I am so impressed with how well this works that I can't believe it has not been common knowledge. I don't know who should get the credit for the rediscovery, but whoever it was thanks. Once this becomes common knowledge LN will need to redesign thier cap irons to acomodate the technique.

[David Weaver]

It sounds like there have been a few classes where it's taught, but somehow the people who learn it never come out and talk about it in the open. I knew if we started talking about it when the video came out, there'd be people ready with torpedos to say "oh yeah, that's common knowledge", but nobody every said "my experience is like warren's" and I certainly never saw a peep of it on here.

Steve and Bill, those are the guys to thank. Without the numbers, the visuals and the original texts that their work brought up, it would probably still seem like half witchcraft and half overpromise.

Warren is probably annoyed with me dropping his name everywhere, but hey..when you champion something by yourself and make bold claims, people are either going to call you a goof or try to disprove what you're saying and find out if it's right or wrong.

[Bruce Haugen]

Steve and Bill, those are the guys to thank. Without the numbers, the visuals and the original texts that their work brought up, it would probably still seem like half witchcraft and half overpromise.

Warren is probably annoyed with me dropping his name everywhere, but hey..when you champion something by yourself and make bold claims, people are either going to call you a goof or try to disprove what you're saying and find out if it's right or wrong.

I watched the original discussion unfold on WC, David, and I was totally amazed at Bill's discipline and tenacity at pushing the discussion through to its conclusion. His methodological training certainly showed itself. And as for Warren, I don't ever dismiss anything he has to say - he just knows so much and has so much experience. I had merely watched the discussion take place, but when Warren made a comment I went out and adjusted my #4 as he suggested. And I'll be danged if it didn't work! It was the single biggest improvement to my hand planing ever.

As you've hinted, if you really want to discuss something in hair-splitting detail, WC is the just the place to do it.

[Jim Koepke]

Another method that sometimes works for me is to use my smallest plane on the odd grained area to see what direction works best. This will slightly lower the problem area so that a few thin passes in the main direction will not touch this but bring the rest down to meet it.

jtk

[David Barnett]

As you've hinted, if you really want to discuss something in hair-splitting detail, WC is the just the place to do it.

WoodCentralians really do know how to obsess. Mea culpa.

Before I ever touched plane to wood, I read the seller's thoughtfully enclosed xeroxed section of an older woodworking text which explained how to tune and set up a Bailey plane, including proper chipbreaker setting. Having done so from the start, I was robbed of the epiphany of coming to it decades later, That and the joys of infill-mania that swept online hand tool communities. Later, in the mid-1990s, I encountered it at Michael Coffey's One Cottage Street School of Fine Woodworking in Easthampton, now the New England School of Architectural Woodworking. Had no idea it was a secret.

As I recall, David Powell of the Leeds Design Workshop in Easthampton, MA, a former apprentice to Edward Barnsley, used the term "glint" as the standard for setting chipbreakers on rescued Bailey and bedrock smoothers in the 1980s, so given his provenance, I was astonished by David Charlesworth's "I am quite clear that it was not common knowledge in England."

[Charlie Stanford]

WoodCentralians really do now how to obsess. Mea culpa.

Before I ever touched plane to wood, I read the seller's thoughtfully enclosed xeroxed section of an older woodworking text which explained how to tune and set up a Bailey plane, including proper chipbreaker setting. As I recall, David Powell of the Leeds Design Workshop in Easthampton, MA, a former apprentice and disciple of Edward Barnsley, used the term "glint" as the standard for setting chipbreakers on rescued Bailey and bedrock smoothers in the 1980s, so given his provenance, I was astonished by David Charlesworth's "I am quite clear that it was not common knowledge in England."

David's empirical bent would never allow him to be satisfied with a term of art like "glint." No, it would have to have been a measurement in thousandths or the notion never existed.

Glint describes it perfectly well and how lucky you were to have received that document.

[David Weaver]

WoodCentralians really do know how to obsess. Mea culpa.

Before I ever touched plane to wood, I read the seller's thoughtfully enclosed xeroxed section of an older woodworking text which explained how to tune and set up a Bailey plane, including proper chipbreaker setting. As I recall, David Powell of the Leeds Design Workshop in Easthampton, MA, a former apprentice to Edward Barnsley, used the term "glint" as the standard for setting chipbreakers on rescued Bailey and bedrock smoothers in the 1980s, so given his provenance, I was astonished by David Charlesworth's "I am quite clear that it was not common knowledge in England."

Good to see you here, David. Would love to have a picture of some of your more bizarre hones over in the "goofy stones" thread. You have a jasper hone, right?

Not that it has anything to do with this thread, but it's one I've never had.

[David Barnett]

Good to see you here, David. ... You have a jasper hone, right?

Thanks, David. And yes, I do. You remembered! It's been over a year since I posted "I've also added several other cherts to my arsenal; a slab of chrysoprase (calcedony) for a super-high polish on my gravers, and a few nice benchstones I sawed from large blocks of brick-colored (red) jasper that cut like a finer grit translucent novaculite, more slowly but finer that anything else I've tried."

I'll check out that thread.

[Kees Heiden]

I guess why this knowledge was "lost" is because there is almost no formal training in handtools woodworking anymore. Professional cabinet makers work with machines, most going CNC these days. Handtool work went down the drain when even the hobbyists bought powertools from the 70ies onwards. Nowadays knowledge is scatered. Everyone is reinventing wheels. The Internet is a great place to share information, but it is a bit of a hodgepodge of course.

Anyway, last April and May was great fun. I remember last winter when I was making an ash table, there was a lot of trouble with reversing grain, even in such a bening kind of wood, and in the end I resorted to the sander. Now I can plane these same boards of ash with no trouble at all, even with my 5 euro Nooitgedagt woodie. My planing ability made a quantum leap too. It's not just avoiding tear out, but the plane rides a lot better in the wood, and the shavings clear the plane better too.

[michael case]

I recently went to purchase a Woodriver v3 #3 smoother. Turns out that whoever makes these planes ground the chip breakers far too short. You can only set the chip breaker to within about an 1/8th to 5/16ths of the edge. Any closer and the blade cannot be extended passed the sole far enough to cut. I looked at several #3s and they all had this DEFECT. I emailed Woodcraft and asked if there was another lot or a new shipment that would not have this defect. I was told it was not defect. Modern blades don't need chip breakers according to them. Oh really? All my old Stanleys allow me to set the chipbreaker where it belongs. Well from this thread it would seem that Grandpa knew what he was doing - chip breakers do break chips. Maybe somebody should tell the folks at Woodcraft. I bought a Lie-Nielsen instead. Guess what! The LN chip breaker can be set right up on the edge.

[David Weaver]

Rob cosman said that in video on YouTube (something like, "all it does is hold the iron and don't let anyone tell you different"). If it wasn't this forum, I saw him mention that he had input in the wood river planes.

Safe to say, whoever decided what they told you about modern irons had no idea what they were talking about.

[Chris Griggs]

I recently went to purchase a Woodriver v3 #3 smoother. Turns out that whoever makes these planes ground the chip breakers far too short. You can only set the chip breaker to within about an 1/8th to 5/16ths of the edge. Any closer and the blade cannot be extended passed the sole far enough to cut. I looked at several #3s and they all had this DEFECT. I emailed Woodcraft and asked if there was another lot or a new shipment that would not have this defect. I was told it was not defect. Modern blades don't need chip breakers according to them. Oh really? All my old Stanleys allow me to set the chipbreaker where it belongs. Well from this thread it would seem that Grandpa knew what he was doing - chip breakers do break chips. Maybe somebody should tell the folks at Woodcraft. I bought a Lie-Nielsen instead. Guess what! The LN chip breaker can be set right up on the edge.

That's odd. My second generation WR no. 6 doesn't have that issue with the chipbreaker. Mine goes all the way to the edge. 1/8 is pretty far - even for situations where one doesn't actually "use" it, that's farther than I think most folks would want it. I'm very disappointed to hear that, especially considering how much the WRs have gone up in price since I got mine. If one is going to make a plane with a CB it should be possible to use it - otherwise its just an extra part and a single iron design would be a better.

[Mike Cogswell]

I cannot speak to a WR V3 #3 since I do not own one, but I do have WR V3 Nos 4, 5 & 6. All of them can be set to a mere hint of a glint with no issues. I tried it on the #4 when I first read about using such close settings. As it happens, at the time I read about it I was struggling with tearout on a very large maple butcher block counter top I was flattening. I immediately gave it a try and it worked like a charm. I subsequently used the same setting on my WR #5. The #6 was a Christmas present and still in the plastic until I read this. I just went downstairs and verified you can set the chipbreaker as thin as you like on it as well, confirming Chris' experience.

All of which makes we wonder why it's a problem with their #3.

Oh well, at least you got a LN #3 out of the deal. I have one and it's a great plane.

[Teun Venema]

I'm new to this forum, but enjoying the soap and drama already :-)

The japanese video is extremely interesting, thank you all for spreading this info out to the rest of the (non-japanese speaking) world.

What struck me, is that with the cap iron being set so close to the cutting edge, at an 80 degree angle, the plane actually almost functions like a card scraper (where the cutting edge is analogous to the burr on the card scraper edge, and the cap iron same as the card scraper side). So would this actually explain why a card scraper functions so well on difficult grain?

[ian maybury]

Think the process with a closely set chip breaker in a plane may be to break the chip before it gets levered up high enough by the blade to start a split running with the grain/more or less horizontally/ahead of the cut below the surface of the piece which may lead to chip out in woods so inclined.

Not so sure about exactly how a scraper functions - as in what exactly the role of the burr is. It could be that it acts as a very short lower angle bevel/rake section before the body of the blade acts as a chip breaker. It's common for example to use a carving knife like a scraper (at a steep/almost vertical angle and across the grain) to shape wood too though. In that case it would just amount to a steep rake angle cutting edge as there is no burr as such. That said he effect even then is presumably to break the chip early too.

??

ian

PS pardon if this off the cuff version ignores earlier discussion on the topic or misses the point...

[Bob Warfield]

I have a Woodriver #3 and a #6. Both V3 and both can be set up at the very edge of the iron. I also have a Stanley #4, #5, #5 1/2, a Union #7, and a Montgomery Wards #8 all of them can be set up this way. IIRC there have been issues with some of the LN planes not having this ability.
Thanks
Bob

[Jim Koepke]

I'm new to this forum, but enjoying the soap and drama already :-)

The japanese video is extremely interesting, thank you all for spreading this info out to the rest of the (non-japanese speaking) world.

What struck me, is that with the cap iron being set so close to the cutting edge, at an 80 degree angle, the plane actually almost functions like a card scraper (where the cutting edge is analogous to the burr on the card scraper edge, and the cap iron same as the card scraper side). So would this actually explain why a card scraper functions so well on difficult grain?

Teun,

Welcome to the Creek. You do not have your location in your profile. Some of us are always curios about what part of the world or country others call home.

You might have some thing there with the card scraper theory.

If it were possible to put a smooth polished edge on a scraper blade it might even be a bit smoother than a plane blade.

Maybe the next video will be on micrographic levels of what is taking place with a scraper in action.

jtk

[Teun Venema]

@ian maybury: I have also been struggling with how the burr works on a card scraper, but I know that without that burr, my card scraper doesn't work well. When I saw the video and made the mental link to the card scraper, there was a small 'aha!' moment.

@Jim Koepke: Sorry for the lack of info in the profile, didn't set things up yet. I've added some info for now (I'm from Europe, the Netherlands by the way).
A video showing the interaction between a card scraper and the wood would certainly be very interesting. I wonder how difficult it would be to create a similar set up...

[David Weaver]

It probably wouldn't be too hard, but someone with the equipment would have to make a fixture to hold a thick scraper blade to do it. The japanese video was made because there was commercial value in it (for the super surfacer), with a side want of teaching material for a class of hand tool users. A double iron setup can take a deep cut / thick chip, but a scraper wouldn't be able to and wouldn't have the same durability in a commercial setting.

I don't know exactly what a scraper does to a chip, what the effective angle or how far back the chip is held, but it definitely doesn't create as nice of a finish as a common pitch plane with the double iron set well. Most people would probably find a card scraper an easier last step, though.

[Jim Koepke]

One part of the card scraper conundrum is the burr. It is likely different from person to person. Some may even find inconsistencies in their own efforts to produce a burr.

jtk

[David Weaver]

You can definitely get a better finish from a scraper if the edge of the scraper is polished and your burnisher is also well polished. But I can't personally get it to match the finish from a sharp common pitch plane.

The closest scraper surface I've seen is the surface that comes off of a polished rigid iron like in a LN or LV plane with the thick iron, and following the setup charlesworth describes in one of his videos (which describes creating a small jig setup so the burr is the same each time). The burr on the harder A2 scraper blades lasts miles longer, too....almost like a plane iron.

But you're right, the burr on scrapers is so variable and transient compared to a plane edge that it'd be hard to categorize " a scraper surface looks like _____".

[Charlie Stanford]

I have seen on the blog of a well known woodworking personality that he seems to have discovered that the chip breaker is indeed a functional item,and made it an article on his blog. Formerly,he had not seen its usefulness,apparently.

He does mention in the body of the writing: "After recent discussions of the Japanese film"(words to that effect,at least),he has learned the usefulness of the chip breaker. No names are mentioned,and that statement is rather brief.

I would like to remind everyone that it was David Weaver here who brought the Japanese film to our attention on SMC. I just want to make sure that credit is given where it is due. David does not have a blog,and that is a handicap to those of us who do not,or choose to not have one. I don't feel that I am currently active enough to have a blog.

I learned a lot myself from David's presentation of this material. Formerly,I had used mostly single iron antique planes,which were the norm in the 18th.C.(except for late in the period). I'd used other dodges to get around tearing,such as planing curly maple directly across the grain with a very sharp iron, sharpening to a higher angle at the cutting edge,or other methods. So,I found David's info,and the film very useful.

I am glad to see that apparently David's thread and subsequent discussions have been educational to all,even some of the "gurus" among us :)

Planecraft, Chapter 4, Adjustment of the Plane (1972 impression underwritten by Woodcraft):

Chart on cap iron working positions:

"For rough work: 1/32" [.794mm]
"For finish work: 1/64" [.397mm]
"For hard woods with irregular grain: as close as you can get it to the cutting edge"

If one is following the progression then maybe 1/128th? This is .198mm I believe - a glint or basically as close as you can get it.

Somebody check my metric conversions.

NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN.

[Teun Venema]

Your metric conversions are correct :-)

The setting of the cap iron in itself is not new of course, but the fact of seeing the influence of those settings in close up on video is new. This helps comprehension, and as a result, makes it easier for others (teachers, bloggers, forum contributors) to accept and pass on the knowledge...

[Charlie Stanford]

Your metric conversions are correct :-)

The setting of the cap iron in itself is not new of course, but the fact of seeing the influence of those settings in close up on video is new. This helps comprehension, and as a result, makes it easier for others (teachers, bloggers, forum contributors) to accept and pass on the knowledge...

Agree, but I would simply note that our forebears were able to work it out without video.

[Derek Cohen]

Agree, but I would simply note that our forebears were able to work it out without video.

Exactly Charlie.

To repeat what I wrote early in this thread, the information about the placement of a chipbreaker has been around a long, long time. One relevant question to ask is why this information appeared to become "lost". My suggestion was that we are what we learn, and especially from whom we learn. Modern era teaching appears fo occur on the Internet or via DVDs (yes, and forums such as these), rather than the words and hands-on experience that was passed down in a traditional workshop and by a traditionally-trained master. If the "modern teacher" only passes on what (s)he knows or prefers, the next generation is only in a position to do he same ... or less.

The chipbreaker, and information how to use it, clearly has been around for hundreds of years. However, recent decades have focussed on the advantages of single-iron planes, high cutting angles, and combinations of these. They work, and they should have been seen to be alternatives. Modern teaching, however, has turned them into the major option when faced with planing difficult grain.

Happy New Year

Derek

[Charlie Stanford]

Happy New Year!