Playing with planes

[Kees Heiden]

More fun stuff with Paul Sellers. Planing without downward pressure.

http://paulsellers.com/2014/01/bench-heights-planes-planing/

This is a well known phenomen. The shaving exerts a downwards force on the edge, until the wearbevel on the backside grows so large that you end up without clearance and the force on the edge inverts. So you can plane with very little downwards force, as long as your blade is sharp. Of course, with a very fluffy shaving this doesn't really work.

Probably also one of the reasons why very light planes like beech smoothers work so well.

[Hilton Ralphs]

Hands free woodworking!

I think a bunch of you-know-who fanboys are going to be very upset.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I always try and sharpen long before I get to the point where I need to push down on a plane to get a shaving. A little at the start of a cut to keep things engaged, that's it. My bench isn't low because I feel a need to push down heavily. It's low because I have to surface all my wood by hand, and my previous work surfaces showed me that if I have to spend a fair length of time pushing planes, doing with my arms raised up at some weird angle gets achey, and a lower bench lets me use my leg and core muscles to do the movement rather than pushing with arms or arms and back. I'm still not pushing down, though! If I get to a point in life where I can prep all my work by machine and just smooth plane things as needed, I'll be raising my primary bench some. (Actually, I think mine is still a little too low, so I'll be raising it a hair as is!)

[Kees Heiden]

My bench is also pretty low, and I have no back problems.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Just watched the video - he says some folks were recommending as low as 28 inches! Unless you're very short, that's ridiculously low for a traditional western plane! I did something similar in height as I was building my bench, just the bench top on saw horses while things got built. That low would get old fast. He says his is 38 inches, though - that's higher than my kitchen cabinets; that would get kind of achey for me even with sawing and chisel work sometimes, and certainly for planing of any length. But Paul looks taller than I do.

I think pointing out that you don't need much if any downward pressure on a plane is a good thing though - I probably did it too much when I started and didn't really know what sharp was, and even with sharp tools, I've seen folks just starting put way too much downward pressure the plane- which just makes it a lot harder to move forward!

I think the big thing with height, is that no one can really tell you what's going to best for you, and a lot of the times you aren't going to realize what's best until you've got some working under your belt. A lot changes with height difference, how you hold your tools and what tools you have, and what tasks you do most.

[Paul Saffold]

Very interesting. I'll confess to being a white knuckle planer. I'll have to give it a try. Certainly looks more controllable not fighting the downforce.

[Jussi Auvinen]

I think its a completely different situation when you're trying to flatten a rough boards face.
Applying the right pressure is much easier (atleast for me) when i'm abit more 'on top of the work', for rough work.

On light edge jointing like that height isnt much of an issue. :rolleyes:

[Metod Alif]

A couple of years ago, Ron Brese, http://www.breseplane.com/ had a similar video for one of his (drool causing :)) planes. And he is not even on the other side of the Pond...
Best wishes,
Metod

[Kees Heiden]

Other reason for pressure on the plane: start a stroke with pressure on the toe, end with pressure on the heel. That's basic planing stuff.

[steven c newman]

Actually relied over at that site of Paul's. All the benches I have built over the years used one basic height, that of my belt buckle. Not AFTER I pull me knickers back up, mind you. Just the normal height of the bellt buckle. For you suspender types, it would be about the height of the top bottom of yer Levis. My main drawback in this hand plane thing is wind. With this COPD, I get winded quickly. Includes handsawing work as well.

Will have to try just pushing along, although I do press down at the start with the knob. Wonder if this will work with a cambered Jack plane??

[Chuck Nickerson]

As evidence the video is quite lacking.

1.It only addresses smoothing. That's not where I spend most of my planing time.

2. Look how slowly he pulls it to keep the plane engaged.

3. How well does this work with walnut, cherry or maple?

If you want a higher bench, make a higher bench; I've raised my Roubo three inches.

I think Paul's bringing a knife to a gunfight here.

(Now let's see whose fanboys get upset.)

[Curtis Niedermier]

First off, I like a bench of about 33 to 34 inches, and I'm 5-11. That's probably a short bench to some people.

Thing is, I don't really base bench height off pressure applied when planing. It's about balancing comfortable working height with eyesight. Maybe you don't have the same experience, but the only time I ever get a sore back is if I have to stoop to see what I'm doing - usually layout work and chopping dovetail waste. I thought about raising my bench so I can see the work better, but I like being "above" my chisels and saws when I work. I feel like it gives me the best arm angles to work.

I overcame the sore back with simple things that don't require me to sacrifice my preferred bench height. I added a bench light, which helped tremendously. I can see my lines without bending my back. I pencil in my knife lines, which helps too. And sometimes, if I have a lot of tedious work to do, I sit on my tool chest or saw bench (I'm starting a shop stool this weekend for this very reason). Also, as I gain more experience, I've found that I don't have to have my eyes as up close and personal with the work as I used to. I can keep my back straight and see and feel if my chisel is at 90 degrees, and I can feel for the knife line with my chisel. I can let my saw cut straight down with out looking in close to make sure I'm on my line.

I've never understood why plane pressure was the driving factor in the bench height debate. I really think it's the distance of the eyes from the work. Just my two cents.


EDIT:::: So I don't know what I was smoking when I wrote this, but I measured my workbench at home during lunch, and it's actually 36 inches. My world is a mess! I guess I'm right in the middle of the bench height range, which means I'm nothing more than average as usual.

[Jim Koepke]

Was this done with a plane blade only sharpened using a 250 grit stone?

Paul Sellers says:


With the lightest of all practical bench planes, the #4

The fanboys of a #3 are upset at that remark.

Starting a cut is done by setting the toe of a plane on the work and applying just enough force to register it to the work. As the full length of the plane contacts the surface being worked any downward force moves to the rear of the plane to keep it registered as the toe moves off the end. When this is done properly the worker ends up with a straight surface and not a banana.

jtk

[Steve Voigt]

Richard Maguire, who knows a thing or two about benches, has a nice rejoinder to Sellers here (http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/?p=2095).

[Hilton Ralphs]

As per usual on internet forums, everything is taken out of context and lots of handbags are thrown around. Bottom line though, you are always going to get opposing views, especially when the blogger is well known. Just look at the reaction when Derek Cohen posts a review, I'm pretty sure he receives a few death threats in the mail.

[george wilson]

Is there something new about this finding?

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

The only thing new I heard in these pieces is that apparently people are saying the reason you ought have a low bench so you can bear down on the wood, an argument I can't say I've ever heard as the reasoning for bench height, (and one that strikes me as wrong) and that someone out there is recommending a 28 inch height, which seems very low indeed. Most heights I've heard recommended are based on body measurements, as far as I can remember, anyway.

If I want my bench closer, I sit on a chair.

[Pat Barry]

OMG - Is this pulling our planes with a rope going to be the the new normal? Or just the standard of excellence?

As for bench height, to each his own. Its an ergonomic thing, depends on what you are doing, how you are doing it, and lots of things. All of us could benefit from and adjustable height workbench. I'd say +/- 4 inches wold work good for me

[bridger berdel]

the thing to remember here is that he is writing for beginners. the number one beginner mistake is trying to power through planing with a dull cutter. this "lesson" of his will tend to correct that. once you settle into an actual planing practice the amount of pressure to use will become second nature.

[Adam Cruea]

I saw this on Reddit about 2 hours ago.

My bench is 32 or 34 inches high. Works for me.

Though I'd love to see him pull that plane through some hickory or Jatoba, then try to say you don't need any downforce. *snicker snicker*

As usual, each situation has it's merits. Do you need to set a Mack truck on your plane? No. Can you plane with 0 downforce? No. There's got to be *something* pulling (or lightly pushing) the plane down, be it the weight of the plane or the blade angle.

Simple matter of physics. You have to have more force being applied down than up and across if you want the plane's blade to stay in the wood. Same with an airplane; if there isn't sufficient lift being generated by airflow over the wings, the airplane is going to drop like a brick. I guarantee if he zipped that plane straight across the wood, it would jump out of the cut.

Why do people have a need to state the obvious?

[Jack Curtis]

I mostly use Japanese planes and need apply very little if any downward pressure, almost all of it is horizontal.

[Simon MacGowen]

One thing I like about Paul Sellers (no, I am not one of his Masterclass students) is that he energizes the woodworking craft, the people practicing it, as well as the people talking about it (like here in this thread). He is also different from many traditional woodworkers in that he thinks outside the box (wooden or not) a lot and it is no coincidence that he has so many followers. I met him once at a US tradeshow and I told him that as controversial as some of his views might be, he should keep on expressing them.

As for his insistence that a high workbench (38" or what not) is better, doesn't it resemble the tails-first-or-pins-first argument? It's like arguing which plane is the best or which sharpening method or jig is the best. The English Woodworker's (Richard M.) 29" workbench is too low for me and Paul's recommendation too high for my height. But I welcome both of their contributions, the least of which is that they have encouraged us (or me at least) to give some consideration to our work vs our workbench height. One-glove-fits-all solutions never exist in woodworking.

Simon

[Malcolm Schweizer]

We sometimes spend more time debating the minor details and less time building stuff. 2" in bench height starts an argument. If it works for you it's the right height.

[Jim Matthews]

Richard Maguire, who knows a thing or two about benches, has a nice rejoinder to Sellers here (http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/?p=2095).

I took the 9 day taster course in New York and found the benches a literal pain in the neck.
My bench is set at just below the height of my belt buckle. Higher than that, I must plane with my elbows tightly flexed.

Mortising at that height was excruciating.
I was chastened by the other attendees when I asked for a platform to stand on.

The 38" height is optimized for Mr. Seller's eyesight, and puts everything in very clear focus at the distance he stands off from the workpiece.
A bench that high puts workpieces too close for me to see through my bi-focals, and forces me to crouch closer
to see what's going on.

I think the reason so many take pot-shots at Mr. Sellers is his pure conviction that his methods are the correct ones.
I took away more things of use than stumbling blocks - as with so many that are trained by strong-willed teachers.

Look up the ineffable body of work from Gere Osgood. He was trained by Tage Frid, for whom everything was straight and in teak.
It's up to the student to make the most of what actually works, in their own shop.

279565

[Brian Ashton]

More fun stuff with Paul Sellers. Planing without downward pressure.

http://paulsellers.com/2014/01/bench-heights-planes-planing/

This is a well known phenomen. The shaving exerts a downwards force on the edge, until the wearbevel on the backside grows so large that you end up without clearance and the force on the edge inverts. So you can plane with very little downwards force, as long as your blade is sharp. Of course, with a very fluffy shaving this doesn't really work.

Probably also one of the reasons why very light planes like beech smoothers work so well.


Bet he can't do that on the moon. Just think how hard it would be to pull it on the sun… That's if he could get the plane to stop melting before he got the rope around the knob…


That could be a great party trick. When everyone is completely wrecked drag a plane up the back of the first person to pass out…

[Roderick Gentry]

"We carried out tests on the bench to try to show that bench planes, in fact all planes, do indeed pull themselves ‘into” the wood as they are pushed forward over the surfaces being planes."

This is the error in his thinking. In the main, western planes are pushed through the work not pulled. The genius of Japanese planes is that they are pulled. (Both types have a somewhat secondary player in the weak hand which on western planes is on the knob, body etc... And on Japanese planes is behind the blade.) He has arranged his rope to pull the plane through the work, when it is pushed by the rear handle If he took his rope over the plane to the rear handle, and put it about where the main power comes, about half way up the handle, he would probably not get a satisfactory result. The western plane works like pushing a snow shovel, and when it encounters resistance it tends to hiccup up, causing chatter. The Japanese plane works like an anchor, and self-seats in the work. This is why a Japanese plane can be so light, and even dull, and it just keeps cutting almost no mater what you throw at it. The obvious downside being that the way it is set-up is a little tiring to some hands, though that would be easily solved if there was any reason to do it.


"I think this does help to see the theory proven. With the lightest of all practical bench planes, the #4, followed by the slightly heavier brother the #4 1/2, balanced on the surface of a board, I literally pulled the plane to see if the plane iron would bite into the wood and so pull itself to task. You can see the results for yourself:"

The demo still shows something, down pressure is not necessary to get a refined mid cut plane to take an extreme finishing shaving from an already finish planed stick. There does seem to be a tendency for modern workers to think that the various planes are all just different length finishing planes, without contemplating the way they were actually designed to work, or the surfaces they would cut, etc... And this is as it should be when teaching modern students, who will probably use power for a lot of their work, or do small amounts of work. The calculations are different. Whether the article style chosen should be the rebuttal is another mater. There is the option of just saying what you want to say about the work, to a given student.

[Simon MacGowen]

We sometimes spend more time debating the minor details and less time building stuff. 2" in bench height starts an argument. If it works for you it's the right height.

+1 Well said.

I think in the pre-Internet days, hobbyist woodworkers spent more time in their shops as doing time in front of a monitor didn't exist. We, of course, gain a lot from forums in return, at least for those who are not addicted to spending time here, just talking about woodworking and not really doing it in a proportional manner.

As a hobbyist, I do about one new project in every 6 to 8 weeks (longer if I am on vacation, at least twice a year). After I retire, I think I may be tempted to spend more time on the Internet, if I am not teaching or have had enough projects built. At least, I know a guy from another forum who logs thousands of entries but has not presented any finished project in the past 14 months. But he does enjoy his time with the keyboard (and he buys a lot of new tools, too).

Simon

[Tom Bussey]

As far as bench height and so on, as well as how you use the plane, do what ever pleases you. The more you use a plane the more second nature it will become and then you won't have to worry about what other people think. As far as bench height goes, raise the bench on blocks or saw off the legs or stand on a box. It is yours to make do with the type of work you want to do. Your work and what type is up to you and you are the only person that you have to please. The bench is the most used tool in the shop make it work for you.

Tom

[David Weaver]

At least, I know a guy from another forum who logs thousands of entries but has not presented any finished project in the past 14 months. But he does enjoy his time with the keyboard (and he buys a lot of new tools, too).

Simon

(not trying to be contrary) That could very well be what he'd do without the internet, just exchange a local social woodworking club for the internet. Whatever floats everyones' boats, as long as they don't harass other people. If I had tons more money, I probably would buy tons more tools.