Forthcoming chipbreaker article

[Steve Voigt]

I was pretty psyched to see this (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/articleindex/chipbreaker-theory-use) today.
Of course, there is already a good article by Dave Weaver on wood central, but it's nice to see this topic getting some front page acknowledgement in the "mainstream" WW press. And Kees has been out front on this issue from the beginning. So, congrats, Kees and Wilbur.

[Chris Griggs]

Excellent!!!

[Kees Heiden]

Don't forget Bill Tindall! He has been at it like a bulldog. Poking and pushing all the right persons until this article got through into the mainstream press. He didn't need to poke me too much because I love writing and I love playing with planes. The cooperation with Wilbur was fantastic too. Great fun to send the article back and forth over the ocean. Hope you all enjoy the article.

To be honest, I won't believe it until I see it in print with my own eyes...

[David Weaver]

Don't forget Bill Tindall!.

Bill Tindall and Steve Elliot both had a hand in digging up the stuff from Japan, and Mia Iwasaki assisted by translating the material that wasn't in English.

Fortunately, the discussions on the forum had started before that was available, but I doubt anyone would've believed us (the fiddlers looking for practical and easy - and not that it matters if anyone believes you if something works - it works anyway). The gloms of experts who have shown up later were never around when warren was taking constant criticism for saying that he's planed without tearout since the late 70s.

[Wilbur Pan]

Thanks for the shout out, Steve. I really appreciate it, and I know Kees does as well. It was great working with Kees on the article.

The translation of the video was a fun project. Mia Iwasaki did a word-for-word translation, and I then edited that translation into language that made sense for woodworkers. It was a lot like what Don Williams, Michele Pietryka-Pagán & Philippe Lafargue did for the Roubo book, although on a much smaller scale. After that, it was some time spent editing the video to add the subtitles. I like to think that the subtitled version of the video is helpful, since not all woodworkers speak Japanese. Neither do I. ;)

[Hilton Ralphs]

Congrats Kees and Wilbur.

Question for Kees, should your name be written as 'Kees van der Heiden' or what PWW penned?

[Kees Heiden]

Yes my name is Kees van der Heiden. But I understand they got the capitals wrong. It is a very Dutch name.

[Metod Alif]

From Fine Woodworking #1, p.22 (Fall 1975):
"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 combined effect of the narrow opening in the plane bottom and the close setting of the chip breaker causes the shaving to make such a sharp bend that it has no chance of propagating a tear-out ahead of the iron, and leaving a rough surface. � "

This information was not new even then. Also, the K-K video contains no info about the effect of the mouth opening. It only confirms some of the old knowledge. Maybe now we can have videos for many other facts of woodworking and then again argue who saw them first.
PWW could acknowledge the article from FWW and other printed sources as well.
I do appreciate the efforts and congratulate for being published.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks for the congratulations. But I don't quite get the point of your post. 1/64" is about 0.4mm. That's too far away for the caprion to do its job properly. But I agree when you say that the K&K video didn't learn us anything new. Heck, the knowledge is 250 years old! The strength of the K&K video is its strong educational effect. And that in fact was the original purpose of the video: Education.

[Chris Griggs]

From Fine Woodworking #1, p.22 (Fall 1975):
"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 combined effect of the narrow opening in the plane bottom and the close setting of the chip breaker causes the shaving to make such a sharp bend that it has no chance of propagating a tear-out ahead of the iron, and leaving a rough surface. � "

This information was not new even then. Also, the K-K video contains no info about the effect of the mouth opening. It only confirms some of the old knowledge. Maybe now we can have videos for many other facts of woodworking and then again argue who saw them first.
PWW could acknowledge the article from FWW and other printed sources as well.
I do appreciate the efforts and congratulate for being published.
Best wishes,
Metod


Huh? So you had this figured out in 1975? Kees didn't help contribute to your understanding of this when you posted the below thread on June 13th, 2012.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?187856-Chipbreakers-and-angles

Perhaps it wasn't your intent to give a back handed congrats by poopooing the efforts prior to complementing them, but that sure is how it came across.

Of course, its not new. And while I don't disagree that a reference to old texts could be a valuable addition, I don't think its a requirement either. Can you imagine if that was done for every dovetail or sharpening article that was ever written?

By the way, as old as this knowledge is, its worth noting that both George Wilson and David Charlesworth (who I think we can all agree have a wealth of knowledge and experience) stated that they didn't start using this technique until the KK video resurfaced and Dave, Kees, and others starting talking about it... and while I do believe it likely that there were/are lots of accomplished woodworkers, who have no presence on forums or media, doing this all along, I also think its pretty clear a lot of woodworkers (novice and master) had written the technique off.

I for one am very glad to see that this getting published and believe it will help enlighten many woodworkers about how to use the chipbreaker to its full effect.

[Daniel Rode]

The educational aspect is they key, IMO. That this was known by some or or by many 25 years ago or 250 years ago is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. That people take the time and effort to document and teach the technique today is what matters to me. The world is not full of people highly skilled in the use of hand planes anymore. It's a small few that can pass on the finer points of hand work.

Honestly, it's like finding money. Something I already have can do finer work with nothing more than a careful adjustment? Win!


Thanks for the congratulations. But I don't quite get the point of your post. 1/64" is about 0.4mm. That's too far away for the caprion to do its job properly. But I agree when you say that the K&K video didn't learn us anything new. Heck, the knowledge is 250 years old! The strength of the K&K video is its strong educational effect. And that in fact was the original purpose of the video: Education.

[Chris Griggs]

The educational aspect is they key, IMO. That this was known by some or or by many 25 years ago or 250 years ago is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. That people take the time and effort to document and teach the technique today is what matters to me. The world is not full of people highly skilled in the use of hand planes anymore. It's a small few that can pass on the finer points of hand work.

Honestly, it's like finding money. Something I already have can do finer work with nothing more than a careful adjustment? Win!

Exactly! You put this much better than I did.

[george wilson]

But,you must realize I was making instruments almost exclusively through the 50's 60's,70's and half way through the 80's when I became the toolmaker. I was doing more scraping than planing on instrument woods. Violins are planed with toothed irons after carving their rough shaped arches. These blades are not like the finely toothed blades on cabinet maker's planes. They consist of small indented grooves about 1/32" to 1/16" apart across the face of the irons. They sort of "grate" curly maple without tearing it.Then,scraping is resorted to for refining of the contours. Plain blades were used on the spruce tops where no figure was present.

When planing flat back instrument wood with difficult figure,I just planed straight ACROSS the grain,then scraped it smoother afterwards.

So,I just wasn't concerned with the processes used by the cabinet maker. I never made a lot of furniture. I was totally consumed with making musical instruments. I periodically made instruments on the side as toolmaker.

[Chris Griggs]

That makes sense George.

I hope my point about you an DC learning it recently was received as intended. I was only trying to illuminate the fact that despite being old knowledge this is information that could potentially be helpful to woodworkers of all skill levels. Even though it wasn't relevant to what you did in your career, I remember how enthusiastic both you and DC were when folks like Dave started trying and succeeding in actively teaching people how to do it correctly...I think your and DCs enthusiasm spoke volumes about it and the potential value of PWW publishing article fully dedicated to the topic.

I've only been woodworking about 5 years. I remember when I started using handplanes seeing a number of references to setting the chipbreaker "very close to the edge", but nothing about what the meant exactly or what it did. What I did run across much more often was a number of mainstream woodworkers saying things like....

.....the CB was only there so maker could get away with using thinner blade

....or that it should be set at least a 1/32 or farther from the edge so you can close up the mouth without clogging

....or even flat out that the CB does nothing to prevent tearout.

I can say that for every vague reference I might readily find to using the CB to prevent tearout I can likely find at least two that flat out contradict that or say to set the CB a good bit farther back than is needed to actually prevent tearout. And this wasn't just bloggers and people on forums...it was articles published by highly respected woodworkers too.

Because of this, when folks started talking about it in the last two years it was REALLY eye opening for me. So I guess I get kinda miffed when people (not you obviously) get condescending about folks who are enthusiastic over learning it for the first time.

[Sam Stephens]

I'm very appreciative to information like this trickling out. I sometimes feel we are in the Dark Ages (of hand tools) just waiting for the Renaissance/Enlightenment to rediscover old truths. Well I guess that's a bit dramatic....but anyways. After stumbling on David's article, battling curly woods and grain reversal w/ a BD plane was a breeze. They could be finished right off the plane.

[george wilson]

No offend taken,Chris. It just needs to be remembered that I am coming from a different area of woodworking. I always made tools,too. But,when I was made toolmaker,I was coming from all over the place. Wood,metal,some glass,etc..

[Megan Fitzpatrick]

Kees, we fixed your name on the site – sorry!

[Ron Bontz]

Looking forward to the article. Perhaps some day I may even get a chance to use it. Thanks for posting.

[Jim Koepke]

Bits of information on subjects like how to set a chip breaker get lost in time.

It may be due to the changes in technology that almost made hand planes and the system of apprenticeships obsolete. Technological advances, a couple of World Wars and a few other events caused a disruption in the flow of life knowledge and training.

It likely happened in just about any craft or trade one can imagine.

Some of the loss may have been due to cultural mores of being careful about passing on information least your "apprentice" learns enough to be your replacement.

Personally, I am happy to have old techniques surface that help in our pursuit of having fun with wood.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks Megan.

[Steve Voigt]

I agree with what Chris and Daniel said above. Just want to add a couple thoughts.
I bought my first planes 18 years ago. I read the FWW article mentioned above. in fact, I read every book and article I could get my hands on in the 90s. I am not a stupid person, but none of it taught me how to use a cap iron correctly. In fact, I did not learn until last year, and I'm still learning.
A couple of things jump out from the FWW article. First, 1/64 is at the outer edge of what will actually reduce tearout. A better description might be "set the chip breaker 1/64 or closer to reduce tearout in difficult grain." Second, the advice on mouth size is unhelpful. If the cap iron is used correctly, you don't need a fine mouth, and trying to use one with a really close-set chip breaker will likely lead to clogging.
This leads me to believe that the author (Mr. Ellsworth) didn't actually use his cap iron to break chips or reduce tearout. He was probably just parroting advice that he'd been taught. I think this is true of almost all these late 20th c. texts.
Contrast the FWW article with Nicholson, writing 200 years ago:
"The distance between the cutting edge of the iron, and the edge of the cover [chipbreaker], depends altogether on the nature of the stuff [wood]. If the stuff is free [straight-grained], the edge of the cover may be set at a considerable distance, because the difficulty of pushing the plane forward becomes greater, as the edge of the cover is nearer the edge of the iron..." ***
Notice that the FWW article never mentions planing resistance. If you are never setting the cap iron closer than 1/64, you are not experiencing the increase in resistance that comes with a super-close setting. You are also probably not experiencing the wonderful sensation of planing directly over nasty, reversing grain with no tearout.
What all this suggest to me is that this knowledge was commonplace 200 years ago, and almost completely lost by the late 20th century. The people who have rediscovered it (Dave, Kees, Warren, and others) have done something really important. It does them a huge disservice to claim that it was known along.

- Steve

*** there is a great post on wood central by warren mickley that discusses this quote from Nicholson.

[David Weaver]

I'm very appreciative to information like this trickling out. I sometimes feel we are in the Dark Ages (of hand tools) just waiting for the Renaissance/Enlightenment to rediscover old truths. Well I guess that's a bit dramatic....but anyways. After stumbling on David's article, battling curly woods and grain reversal w/ a BD plane was a breeze. They could be finished right off the plane.

I personally thought there was a lack of practical discussion on just what to do if you had never set a cap iron before, and spent so much time arguing with warren (and don't have many of the older texts people refer to now when they want to throw back at you that it's nothing new - which is true - it's nothing new), and I remember saying something on wood central to warren about 5 or 6 years ago that it made the plane too hard to push (I set it too close, but didn't know that I was just a slight adjustment away from not wasting a lot of money or spending a lot of time making steep single iron planes - which I did do). Plenty of other people probably did the same thing, set it a little too close, found resistance and figured that they couldn't get it.

The video was OK, but I probably would've written the WC article without it if it wouldn't have come out. It's funny that Kees was fiddling with the same stuff around the same time, and as far as I know, also before any videos. I didn't offer to write about the setup in PWW or anywhere else, because I felt like a pro should write it in hard print and I also wanted control of what would be said and how long it would be - whatever it takes to describe it more or less, and the ability to revise if we found something new out. We didn't. Well, no pro came forward (and maybe it's so subtle to the few pros who use it on paying work that it would be difficult to describe) and if anyone was going to write the article, I'm happy that Kees did it because he came by it honestly by experimenting, and that gives you a good fresh detailed perspective. Videos and everything are good, but there is no substitute for genuine time spent at the bench.

If I never see another person saying they have a stanley plane for easy wood but can't afford a plane that can handle curly maple, that'll be great.

The two side benefits that come from the setup also are:
* you can take a heavier shaving than you ever imagined when you're working to a marking line, and never have pucker factor
* all of the sudden, the stock irons in stanley planes seem perfectly adequate when the cap iron is set in close on them. They're actually maybe a little bit more pleasant to use when all things (like sharpening) are considered.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

The two side benefits that come from the setup also are:
* you can take a heavier shaving than you ever imagined when you're working to a marking line, and never have pucker factor


In my limited experimenting after you guys starting talking about this stuff (I just don't work enough hardwoods lately to really worry about it) that's the real gem of this whole CB thing - most woods I can get reasonable results with super thin tiny smoother shavings if the iron is sharp enough, regardless of most other settings. But that takes way too damn long, especially if you've got some rough spots left from the jack plane.

It's being able to take a reasonably heavy shaving from a jointer plane, (or a jack plane after moving to with-the-grain-strokes from across-the-grain-strokes) on something tear-out prone, and not have to worry about making more work for myself, or removal of tear-out resulting in a way-too-thin board in the end, that really makes this CB business shine for me. And that's what I think is missed sometimes in the discussion. There are a lot of ways to get a nice smoother to leave a tearout-free surface, or to get a tear-out free surface with scrapers or sandpaper. And maybe that's all most people need, if they're just polishing up wood that's been run through machines. But I surface things by hand because that's all I have access to, and none of the other tricks I've encountered really make taking heavier shavings in the pre-smooth-plane stage as easy as this technique.

[Wilbur Pan]

I've only been woodworking about 5 years. I remember when I started using handplanes seeing a number of references to setting the chipbreaker "very close to the edge", but nothing about what the meant exactly or what it did.

I’m really heartened by that statement, because that’s one of the main reasons that made me want to write the article with Kees. Like you, Chris, I had seen a lot of information about chipbreakers, but not written in a way that made sense in the context of a woodworker doing this as a hobby, without the benefit of having someone right there to show what needed to be done.

Like Kees, eventually I figured it out by experimenting in my shop. I also figured out a way to describe the process in a way that I thought was repeatable by others, even without the use of hands on teaching. That was the main goal of our article. Hopefully, when you read the article, you’ll agree.

[Jim Koepke]

I’m really heartened by that statement, because that’s one of the main reasons that made me want to write the article with Kees. Like you, Chris, I had seen a lot of information about chipbreakers, but not written in a way that made sense in the context of a woodworker doing this as a hobby, without the benefit of having someone right there to show what needed to be done.

Like Kees, eventually I figured it out by experimenting in my shop. I also figured out a way to describe the process in a way that I thought was repeatable by others, even without the use of hands on teaching. That was the main goal of our article. Hopefully, when you read the article, you’ll agree.

Well I for another one am glad for everyone over the last few years or more not only took the time and also some knocks, but also realized there was something going on that experimentation could explain and quantify.

Before all of the videos and publication, I had seen things about setting the chip breaker close, but nothing explaining what was specifically meant by close and what was really taking place.

jtk

[David Weaver]

Like Kees, eventually I figured it out by experimenting in my shop. I also figured out a way to describe the process in a way that I thought was repeatable by others, even without the use of hands on teaching. That was the main goal of our article. Hopefully, when you read the article, you’ll agree.

The first part of this is either revisionist or just late as I specifically recall your responses in mine, kees and warren's discussions as to not ever having a need for it. In regard to the material, there has been a completely free (which is important) article to read for more than a year and a half that is specifically written so amateurs can get a quick feel for how to set a cap iron, and so that they get a sense that there is subtlety in some things that they have to work out with experience (hence encouraging experimentation and examination of what's going on). It certainly wasn't written for professionals.

Perhaps my biggest mistake was not promoting the article, or not being part of "club blog" which is at best, a constant stream of repeating things other people have said, but to imply that there has been nothing published that is intended for amateurs is deletory. Even prior to any articles being published, there was no lack of understanding just from the discussions on the board, and apparently Graham Blackburn has had a traveling show for years prior even (that just somehow never made it to discussion) showing people how to use a double iron at woodworking events/shows.

The *entire* progression of all of this can be traced pretty much to warren singly championing the double iron to the ire of most of the other folks on the forums (some who thought he might be trolling), which may have been the impetus for Bill and Steve to go searching, I don't know. I certainly wish Warren would have written the first article instead of me, because it would be definitive by decades of practice (and it cannot be overstated how much more valuable advice from George or Warren is than it is from amateurs like us writing articles - even if we sometimes don't want to do the work to understand what they're telling us). But, I can understand if Warren has actual work to do and doesn't necessarily want to entertain amateurs by micro-detailing everything he does.

Being accurate about the progression of this and what is out there would be appropriate, though.

[Sean Hughto]

Blog fights like this have a bit of Sayre's Law quality to them. Perhaps the huge profits from the article could be donated to a woodworking charity?

More seriously, it's great that we can share best practices like this in the internet age. Credit to all of you how brought this good information to the fore. Now go plane some wood!

[David Weaver]

Now go plane some wood!

The best advice yet! Time at the bench and a problem to solve teaches better than anything else.

[Chris Griggs]

Now go plane some wood!

What is this "wood" you speak of, and how can one go about using their planes on it. I was under the impression that these tools were only to be used as conversation pieces for internet discussions. :D

[Metod Alif]

Kes,
I am apologizing for my wording. It was not intended to belittle your work. I appreciate very much the educational value of the article and the video. I have watched the video on Wilbur
site four or maybe even 5 times. I did want to point out the absence of the mouth opening issue. Much had been written about the mouth opening and the claims made are conflicting.

To quote from Steve Voigt post: "He was probably just parroting advice that he'd been taught." The media is infested with that. I wish more would be done to combat this problem with empirical evidence.

Chipbreakers have their limitations. How do they compare with other means of coping with difficult grain. Did higher bed/curring angles come into play because the chipbreakers have limitations?

Best wishes,
Metod

[David Weaver]

Higher bedded planes preceded chipbreakers. Warren knows more about the actual history of the cap irons and the earliest published sightings than I will ever know, and probably so does Larry Williams because Larry is "loaded for bear" about the history of planes and why he prefers a steeper beveled tight-mouthed single iron plane instead of a double iron plane.

I've had discussions with George about this, too, just offhand and out of curiosity and from the original discussions in february/march/april 2012 Joel's mention of the quality of wood declining, it may not have been as important to have so much tearout mitigation in the early 1700s as the quality of wood over here was excellent, and was declining around the time of the double iron, and to paraphrase Joel, the skill of the individuals was being cheapened and the double iron plane is a better fit for less skilled labor. George has mentioned various times that a lot of the original old work that was not fine cabinetmaking did get finished and installed often including huge amounts of tearout.

I can comfortably say at this point, if you are dealing with the normal things we work (medium hardwoods, softwoods, hardwoods like maple, beech, etc), there's really no limitation of the chipbreaker setup in a standard bailey plane or any common pitch plane that's been made correctly, no matter how nasty the grain of the wood is, even if it is running out in random directions right into the face of a board. Having attempted to make a "tearout proof" 55 degree infill smoother with a 3-4 thousandth mouth, I was a bit disappointed after the effort to find that there is literally nothing that a standard bailey plane can't plane that the infill smoother can, and once familiar, the only advantage that the infill has is that it's heavier so it gives a "wood show" thrill (as in, it cruises through stuff without transmitting much of the feeling to the user - a cadillac effect, but at a wood show you don't use it long enough to notice that the drawback of that is that it will wear you out if you actually use it for any quantity of wood). At any rate, the bailey can work twice as fast, because you can take tearout free shavings on a smoother that are far thicker than the mouth on the infill, and the finish is better than the infills, and the quality of the tearout free surface from the chipbreaker-equipped plane is less dependent on sharpness. the difference is minor, but it is there.

Those cadillac infills and precise high angle planes are great displays of planemaking skill, but a moderately experienced person making furniture-sized projects will get their work done much more quickly and with as good of quality with the cheap planes.

The one single exception that I have seen in all of it is that I had one individual plane that with the stock iron and stock chipbreaker (even properly fitted) that would get bound up by shavings getting between the cap iron and the iron in the late wood of cocobolo. That part of cocobolo is about 3000 or 3200 on the janka scale, while the early wood is something like a third of that - it is dense enough and hard enough that a heavy shaving of it will sometimes be able to force itself under the cap iron, anyway. The flip side of that is that taking 2 thousandths off at a time with a high angle plane in the same wood is extremely unpleasant if there is any quantity to be removed. It just isn't a nice wood to work in quantity by hand, and that kind of thing shouldn't steer the decision about what you'd otherwise use daily.

[Derek Cohen]

Chipbreakers have their limitations. How do they compare with other means of coping with difficult grain. Did higher bed/curring angles come into play because the chipbreakers have limitations?

Hi Metod

These are good questions. I am looking forward to reading the article by Kees and Wilbur. I have no idea what aspects they are covering, but I do hope that there is explanation of the how and not just the what - I like to understand how and why things occur, and not simply just follow directions what to do.

My understanding of the methods of controlling tearout in difficult grain is that it boils down to the way the shaving (or chip) is allowed to form. A Type I chip allows the shaving to form ahead of the edge of the blade. In turn, this allows the wood to split open. The further ahead of the blade the wood splits, the rougher the surface. This tearing of the surface is what we refer to as tearout. One simple way to prevent the wood tearing far from the edge of the blade is to close up the mouth so as to place pressure on the wood surface and restrict the area in which it can tear.

Another method is to convert a Type I chip into a Type II chip. A Type II chip bends the shaving at a sharp angle, at the very edge of the blade. The closer to the edge of the blade, the less the opportunity of the wood to tear, and the smoother the cut (the less the tearout). The question is, what can be done to force the wood to bend at the edge of the blade and not ahead of it?

There are essentially two ways to do this. The first is to use a cutting angle that forces the shaving vertically. This is a high cutting angle of 55 - 65 degrees. This may be achieved either with a high angle bed on a BD plane, or a high bevel angle on a BU plane.

The second way is to use the chipbreaker to re-direct the shaving. Moving the chipbreaker to the edge of the blade enables the shaving to contact it, and to immediately force the shaving upward, bending the section at the tip of the blade into a tight arc, and preventing the wood tearing. It is not sufficient, however, to simply move the chipbreaker to the edge of the blade (which, in itself, has a small range between too far back and too far forward). The leading edge of the chipbreaker is still required to re-direct the shaving, and too low an angle (e.g. 25 degrees) at the leading edge will not stop the shaving moving back over the chipbreaker. It requires a steeper leading edge to force the shaving up. This is estimated (by the Kato research) to be between 50 - 80 degrees).

With a Type II chip, whether via the cutting angle or the chipbreaker defection, the size of the mouth becomes irrelevant. The mouth is no longer controing the tear.

In short, the aim is to create a Type II chip formation. There are different ways to do this.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sam Stephens]

i think others above said it better than I, but here's my $0.02.


Kes,
Chipbreakers have their limitations. How do they compare with other means of coping with difficult grain.


Did higher bed/curring angles come into play because the chipbreakers have limitations?


I think you missed the point. I don't think the fact that other designs exist implies that one method is limited. The point of this is proper setup of a cap iron (it doesn't break chips yo). Sure there are different strokes for different folks i.e. more than one way to skin a cat. Higher pitch works, low angle planes work, but bedding angle effects the quality of the surface. A single iron plane like a molding plane w/ a relatively thicker iron at a higher pitch can make a big difference, but of course these aren't designed w/ cap irons. So yes, there are other ways around tear out, including grain selection. How well does a bailey plane w/ a cap iron properly set compared to some other design -well i guess that's up to the user -In my limited experience w/ curly maple and cherry, gnarly walnut and some other domestic hardwoods -I have no need (don't tell my wife) for other plane designs. Will other plane designs work -sure, but so will sandpaper. Will anyone be the wiser? no.

[Kees Heiden]

No need for appology Metod. I understand your message.

Well, I'd say, read the article. Then I'll be more then willing to discuss the topic. Ad nauseum if neccessary. :D

[Chris Griggs]

Metod. Sorry if I assumed ill intent to quickly. I do that sometimes on this forum. I gotta work on that.

Your points about the other variants are all good questions.

[Adam Cruea]

Metod. Sorry if I assumed ill intent to quickly. I do that sometimes on this forum. I gotta work on that.

Your points about the other variants are all good questions.

Uh, I think the assumption of ill intent is probably *more* likely. I point to wherever the previous chip breaker threads have gone and died as an illustration. :D There are a few folks here that seem to like to add a pissed off badger to a bear's cage and watch them go at it, if you get my drift.

[Brian Holcombe]

This thread needs to visit the Whisk(e)y thread before proceeding.

[Chris Griggs]

This thread needs to visit the Whisk(e)y thread before proceeding.

1 hour 20 minutes and counting until I get on that train! TGIF!

[Chris Griggs]

Uh, I think the assumption of ill intent is probably *more* likely. I point to wherever the previous chip breaker threads have gone and died as an illustration. :D There are a few folks here that seem to like to add a pissed off badger to a bear's cage and watch them go at it, if you get my drift.

All those poor bears and badgers :(

[Brian Holcombe]

Bunnahabhain is calling my name!

[David Weaver]

Uh, I think the assumption of ill intent is probably *more* likely. I point to wherever the previous chip breaker threads have gone and died as an illustration. :D There are a few folks here that seem to like to add a pissed off badger to a bear's cage and watch them go at it, if you get my drift.

Some of us go a little Walter Sobchak every once in a while, if you know what I mean. "I'm sorry Smokey, you were over the line. That's a foul".

If you don't have vanity license plates that say "CHPBRKR" and "CAPIRN", you're entering a world of pain!

(probably chris and three other people will get that reference)

[Chris Griggs]

Bunnahabhain is calling my name!

Never had it. Looked it up. Mmmmmmmmmmm an Islay.... SMOKEY! Me lika de smokey


Some of us go a little Walter Sobchak every once in a while, if you know what I mean. "I'm sorry Smokey, you were over the line. That's a foul".

If you don't have vanity license plates that say "CHPBRKR" and "CAPIRN", you're entering a world of pain!

(probably chris and three other people will get that reference)

I sure do!! :)

[Brian Holcombe]

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/SpeedyGoomba/886CE181-5383-4C08-8B43-E20CCD69CA52_zps8izglban.jpg

I'm in good company! Smokey scotch is where it's at!

[Judson Green]

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/SpeedyGoomba/886CE181-5383-4C08-8B43-E20CCD69CA52_zps8izglban.jpg

I'm in good company! Smokey scotch is where it's at!

I see many of my familiar friends on the bottom row! May I ask is there something tasty in the box, too?

[Brian Holcombe]

Absolutely; Cohiba esplendidos, Monte #2's, Davidoff Perfectos and some random ashtons. I don't smoke very often, so I keep some pretty solid choices in the box.

[Judson Green]

Sounds yummy! Have fond memories of an Aston VSG...

[Brian Holcombe]

Looking forward to them, the Ashton's, davidoffs and montes have always treated me well, haven't tried any of the esplendidos but they are held in high regard so I bought some on vacation abroad.

I wonder if there would be any interest in a gentleman woodworkers get together, hand tools, whisky, and fine habanos.

[Adam Cruea]

Looking forward to them, the Ashton's, davidoffs and montes have always treated me well, haven't tried any of the esplendidos but they are held in high regard so I bought some on vacation abroad.

I wonder if there would be any interest in a gentleman woodworkers get together, hand tools, whisky, and fine habanos.

Might want to leave the hand tools out of it. The last thing we need is ill intent with Whiskey and Smokes mixed with razor-sharp blades. ;)

[Brian Holcombe]

Lol, swap hand tools for dry aged steaks.

[Judson Green]

Don't need anything sharp for that, well.. sharper than a fork.

[Metod Alif]

Kes,
Thanks for being gracious and understanding.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Metod Alif]

Chris,
" Sorry if I assumed ill intent to quickly"
My wording was rather poor, so your assumption was 'reasonable' :D.
What is nice, that we are willing to clear up possible misunderstandings instead of being stubborn about them. I appreciate that you accepted my clarification.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Metod Alif]

Hi Derek,
I completely agree with your statements. I would :) include backbevels as another possibility to attain a higher cutting angle. I would like to highlight your

"With a Type II chip, whether via the cutting angle or the chipbreaker defection, the size of the mouth becomes irrelevant."

There must be some kind of psychological :confused: principle, when observers accept empirical evidence according to their beliefs as opposed to changing beliefs according to empirical evidence.

During last few days I spent several hours comparing a closely set chipbreaker on my #4 LN with a 55* bedded plane. I was edge planing wood samples of poplar, cherry, black walnut and curly maple.Cherry board had a sharp grain reversal due to a knot near its edge. Others I was planing against the grain, curly maple being more challenging than the others. LN never performed better than the 55* one. Of course, with some other samples/woods LN would outperform the 55*.
Some differences between the two planes: LN has A2 iron while the 55* has O1. The mouth opening on 55* was about gaping 1/32" larger than on LN.
When I used a 3/64" shim to close the mouth of 55* to 'very' tight, the quality of the cut did not improve - it was already smooth, but it was harder to push the plane.
While the 55* is heavier than LN, I could not say that it was harder (or easier) to push than LN. At a glance it seems that I need (not much room at those minuscule thicknesses) slightly lighter cuts with LN than with 55* for the same quality of cut. Also: The A2 iron on LN seems to 'tire' sooner than the O1 iron on 55*. I would pay more attention to these possibilities in the future before beginning to swear by them.
I might make me a 60* or 65* plane - but then I need new woods to try them out.
At this point of my experience, I would not expect a close chipbreaker on a 45* to outperform a plane with higher than 55* cutting angle. As 'operating principle', I would change my expectations should somebody present empirical evidence.

Tight mouth gospel is often followed with uncritical attitude as are many other guru-isms.
I do admire how thoroughly you are investigating various claims and how immune you are unsupported claims.:)

Best wishes,
Metod

[Tom McMahon]

Metod, Did you adjust the bevel angle on the leading edge of the LN chipbreaker? Setting it close to the edge is only half of the process. I own infills, LNs, woodies, and LV and none of them can out preform a stanley with the original blade and chipbreaker set up properly when the measure is the quality of the surface, the other planes have tighter tolerances, less backlash, and may feel better to use but they do not create a better surface. Properly set up of the chipbreaker has improved the performance of all of them. The LN chipbreaker with the factory grind will not work and many people are afraid to modify it adequately and I have read that on some models it cannot be made to work. Also in order to get my LN#4 to work on softer woods like eastern white pin or cedar the mouth needed to be opened up or it would clog.

[David Weaver]

I'd pretty much agree with what tom said. I spent about 5 years arguing that the chipbreaker was unnecessary trouble. The difference between then and now is s couple of hundred feet of hand dimensioning. If you're just jointing edges and planing already flat surfaces, it hardly makes much difference what you do.

If dimensioning by hand. it makes a big difference.

I've had the best results from rounded edge cap irons, and not flat bevels, especially not very steep flat bevels.

[Tom McMahon]

I agree with david the standard stanley round front chipbreaker has worked the best for me but you can get others to work.

[David Weaver]

I'm going to expand on what I said above, so that it doesn't look like I'm disagreeing with metod for sport. I was in an airport waiting for a connecting flight and I can only tolerate so much typing on a phone.

Anyway, there are definitely cases where a large mouth 55 degree plane will incur tearout, and for the most part, that's cuts heavier than smoothing. If you're smoothing 1 or 2 thousandth shavings, it's unlikely you'll get in much trouble because the shaving won't be thick enough to be able to pull up a long chip. Increase the chip size and leave the mouth wide open, and you'll run into trouble.

As far as the cap iron vs a 55 degree iron and one being harder to push than another, it is, again, an issue of doing more than just smoothing. When the cut gets heavier, the common pitch plane separates itself pretty easily. If you're dimensioning by hand and running off saw marks to get close to a marked line, a heavier shaving is in order. Anything working to mark line - heavier shaving, be it with the jointer or whatever. Cutting a chamfer on something, again, same thing. Heavy shaving without tearout is desirable. Couple that with then still being left with a common pitch plane that will also cut endgrain on a panel without trouble, so there's no reaching for a second plane, etc.

This is an instance, and when I was arguing with warren long ago, where simplified empirical tests are no substitute for opinion formed from longer practice. If the goal is to only smooth, then a simplified test of smoothing might be fine, but it doesn't cover working heavier shavings, working 15 board feet of wood over an hour from rough (where you'll definitely get tired), cutting chamfers, working across end grain, etc. Anyway, warren's point at the time was that I should learn the subtleties and not try to draw a conclusion on something that can easily be done in a quick finewoodworking comparison type test. In addition, i don't know how well anyone else does with a double iron, but a more appropriate test of it would be derek using a single iron plane and warren using a double iron, rather than either of them trying to do both and make concrete conclusions that are laid over everyone like a blanket in a blog post. It just doesn't fit any better than a FWW test that declares LN chisels superior to japanese chisels fits. The subtlety of a craftsman's opinion developed from practice is much more appropriate because a quick comparison test on one aspect is never going to encompass the universe of work.

Having been through all of them, like Tom, I settled on the lighter less premium planes. The work is every bit as good (or better when you consider surface finish), it's faster, the planes are lighter and can be used longer, etc. I was really hoping that the cap iron would also illuminate use of japanese planes with a double iron (so that they too could be used tearout free with a heavy shaving), but the truth is that they are far less convenient to set and be set (and even some of the premium japanese planes have ledge dais where the pin is not in the right place to use the cap iron appropriately).

[Kees Heiden]

Hi Metod. Like David sais, it's not a sport to dismiss your experience. It is your experience, and valid for you. I do wonder though about the bevel on the front edge of your capiron and how close you set it to the edge. Not that you can really meassure this distance very well, but in my experience, when I am not happy with the surface finish, I just need to push it a little closer

In adition to David's message above. I think using the capiron is also about damage control. When you get into jack plane shaving thickness, you can't always avoid tearout even with the capiron set as close as possible with these thick chips. But it certainly helps to reduce the depth of the tearout. It is somehow more forgiving. When I increase the shaving thickness with a plane without capiron, the surface goes suddenly from smooth to deep tearout.

[Derek Cohen]

All this writing of thick shavings. And tearout with deep shavings when using the chipbreaker on a smoother. I find this contradictory.

There are times to plane deeply, and there are times when this is inappropriate.

I believe that it is inappropriate to take deep shavings when smoothing if the wood one is planing is a show side and has interlocked grain that may tear out. One takes the shaving that safely provides the finished surface you need. If this takes you three passes of a plane instead of one, then so be it. I would rather do two extra passes with a smoother, taking thinner shavings, than have to redo the entire piece because of tearout. What is the rush?

Anyway, who dimensions boards with a smoother? I take thick shavings when dimensioning, and I use a jack, a foreplane or a jointer in this regard. Not a smoother.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

My jack, fore and jointer also have a capiron.

Thin shavings like in a smoother require a very close set capiron if the wood is difficult. But in very troublesome wood using a smoother I still find the plane with capiron more forgiving then the one without.

A super thin shaving, like sub 1 thou, is time consuming. Not only because it takes more strokes, but especially because of the finicky set up procedure. 2 to 3 thou is easier, thus quicker. The super thin shaving also demands a very flat board. If the board has cupped a bit (because you only work on it in the weekends) before you get to the smoothing stage, that means quite a bit of extra work.

Just some random thoughts.

[Derek Cohen]

My jack, fore and jointer also have a capiron.

Thin shavings like in a smoother require a very close set capiron if the wood is difficult. But in very troublesome wood using a smoother I still find the plane with capiron more forgiving then the one without.

A super thin shaving, like sub 1 thou, is time consuming. Not only because it takes more strokes, but especially because of the finicky set up procedure. 2 to 3 thou is easier, thus quicker. The super thin shaving also demands a very flat board. If the board has cupped a bit (because you only work on it in the weekends) before you get to the smoothing stage, that means quite a bit of extra work.

Just some random thoughts.

Hi Kees

I do not take thin shavings with a jack, or foreplane. I only take thinnish shavings with a jointer when finishing an edge (there is nothing worse than joining edges that have torn out). If the surface of an edge is vulnerable to tearout I will use a plane/set up that minimises tearout (high angle, chipbreaker, whatever) ... but I am still not going to take thick shavings at this stage.

If the board is cupped, I use a jack plane and take deep shavings (without a chipbreaker).

All this aside - the topic is about the chipbreaker on a smoother (Metod discussed his #4 and #55, and the cover picture of the article on PW features a board planed with a #4). Are you advising all that they take deep shavings with a smoother in the final stages just to save time?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Sorry. I can't discuss the article or the pictures before it has been published.

[Derek Cohen]

Well Kees, I am looking forward to the article. I assume it is a run down of what and how, but not about the areas discussed here? OK, later. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

All this writing of thick shavings. And tearout with deep shavings when using the chipbreaker on a smoother. I find this contradictory.

There are times to plane deeply, and there are times when this is inappropriate.

I believe that it is inappropriate to take deep shavings when smoothing if the wood one is planing is a show side and has interlocked grain that may tear out. One takes the shaving that safely provides the finished surface you need. If this takes you three passes of a plane instead of one, then so be it. I would rather do two extra passes with a smoother, taking thinner shavings, than have to redo the entire piece because of tearout. What is the rush?

Anyway, who dimensions boards with a smoother? I take thick shavings when dimensioning, and I use a jack, a foreplane or a jointer in this regard. Not a smoother.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek, the point is that you can take the shaving without tearout. You may get surface fuzz on something because the shaving is coarse, but there will be no tearout and one final thin pass or two will remove the fuzz. If the cap iron is set properly, the plane will stand you still instead of tearing out in the sense of chips being pulled up from the surface.

In terms of appropriateness, this may be the kind of shaving that comes off of a jointer, or if the board is smaller and you've worked it with a try or fore plane just short of the thickness mark, you'd use a shaving of this type right to the top side of the thickness or width mark and then take one or two passes with a thin shaving to get a final surface.

The entire point is economy. It may be lost on a few small pieces, but on a large piece it is very practical. No risk of tearout, hit your mark, etc.

If the wood doesn't allow all downhill planing (as some of the quality of wood here does not), then the cap iron is set close enough even as far back as the jack to mitigate tearout (especially on what would have otherwise been an errant catastrophic stroke against the grain without a cap iron). It will not be eliminated, but it will be minor enough to be removed by jointing and smoothing without doing anything more than you would do in wood that allows planing downhill.

At any rate, it's economy of effort, just the same as the desire to have a saw set as aggressively as you can get it without it being too aggressive to be comfortable to use. There is a satisfaction that you get with it, including a physical satisfaction, to working efficiently, and it brings people away from the idea that dimensioning wood by hand is a death of a million safe plane strokes.

This kind of thing is the reason that a fine woodworking test of a 2 thousandth shaving isn't appropriate, and why warren's opinion isn't ever likely going to match someone who plays with a double iron on thin smoother shavings for a couple of weeks and then draws a conclusion to be laid over everyone and follows it with QED.

[Tom McMahon]

Realizing that I have little or no credence in this debate, I'm going to tell my story any way. I started woodworking in 1966, from that time I have purchased and used almost every style of plane there is in a search for the silver bullet. I came to the conclusion you can make them all work, they all have their flaws but you can find workarounds and get a good surface with any of them. Then the chip breaker film surfaced, I went out to the shop and experimented, first with a Stanley #3, then a#6, then #7, then woodies then my LNs. I use planes every day and this has changed the way I work and what I thought I knew. It almost does not matter what the grain is doing, you can plane in any direction with or against the grain, across knots, with any plane with a chip breaker. Smoothers, jionters, jacks, the difference in performance is so dramatic I can't believe any one that has expierenced it can argue against it. Whoever invented the standard round front stanley style chip breaker knew exactly what he was doing and no modern maker has improved it.

[David Weaver]

Tom, I'd say your description gives you plenty of credibility. A large percentage of folks don't believe anything I say, either.

[Metod Alif]

Sam,
Everything has limitations in the sense that its design and materials permit. This is not a bad thing - when one tool/plane encounters 'unmanageable' situation, maybe another tool can handle it. It is not uncommon (from what users report - I need to set up an experiment for this) that even the 'goodest';) plane of any design must yield to a card scraper, and a cardscraper to sandpaper. For some finishes, a planed surface is less desirable than a sanded one.
"Sure there are different strokes for different folks i.e. more than one way to skin a cat." I completely agree. As a matter of fact, I am 'teaching' a friend some woodworking. He has no tools of his own and is learning by using what I have. At one point (I hope) he will start acquiring his own tools. I want to inform him honestly about what I know. Last Wednesday I was (on the sly - he is working on a small project) demonstrating the equality of both, a 55* bed plane and A 45* with a close chipbreaker. It turned our hat the 55* was a bit ahead of the other on the samples. I was surprised, because that was not what I remembered from a few months ago. Anyway, next day a put a fresh hone on the 45* (LN) and restored the equality. I will encourage my friend to experiment on his own with both types before he makes or purchases his own.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Metod Alif]

David,
"the truth is that they are far less convenient to set"
Judging from various posts, some people have difficulty setting the breaker close enough to the edge to be effective. The breaker on my LN does not cause any jamming and setting it close is easy for me. Last night I had a closer look at the breaker: flat ground (I did hone and polish it on a strop a while ago) at about 30*. There is 'space' to put a narrow backbevel and experiment some more. If/when I encounter a situation when the chipbreaker does better than 55*, I will accept it wholeheartedly. Most likely, I will follow up by a 60*/65* plane :).
When I started woodworking, dimensioning of lumber was an act of skill. Now it is just an act of brute force. I spend a good amount of time experimenting (piddling in my shop) with no finished projects as a result. But I do make stuff; just in a hybrid mode: brute force steps (no post-beginner skill needed) on machinery, others by hand tools.
I use what I am happy with and match the tool to the project at hand - and enjoying the leisure of some experimentation with an eye on application. Were I a professional, I would like be facing different situations as a hobbyist - and adjust accordingly.

Best wishes,
Metod

[Steve Voigt]

Realizing that I have little or no credence in this debate, I'm going to tell my story any way. I started woodworking in 1966, from that time I have purchased and used almost every style of plane there is in a search for the silver bullet. I came to the conclusion you can make them all work, they all have their flaws but you can find workarounds and get a good surface with any of them. Then the chip breaker film surfaced, I went out to the shop and experimented, first with a Stanley #3, then a#6, then #7, then woodies then my LNs. I use planes every day and this has changed the way I work and what I thought I knew. It almost does not matter what the grain is doing, you can plane in any direction with or against the grain, across knots, with any plane with a chip breaker. Smoothers, jionters, jacks, the difference in performance is so dramatic I can't believe any one that has expierenced it can argue against it. Whoever invented the standard round front stanley style chip breaker knew exactly what he was doing and no modern maker has improved it.

Yeah, this.

[Metod Alif]

Hi Kees,
I am proud to report:cool: that I can set the chipbreaker very close to the edge. The bevel on the breaker is about 30* - as it was when I bought the plane new. It had a good (no jamming) fit with the iron. I did strop the edge. With the woods that I currently have around, I am even with a 55* no breaker plane. I would need other samples to experiment further.
For me at this point, the question is one of convenience and preference. The 55* has a different ergonomics (preferred) than LN. Tending to the iron of the 55* is faster. A slight turn of the knob on the lever cap and the iron slides out. No dis-assembly needed for honing - and back it goes. Manual adjustment for the depth of cut (a magnet keeps the iron steady) and a turn of the knob to secure the iron. I also use a hammer to tap in adjustments as needed during planing. Servicing the LN is really a non-issue. Separating the chipbreaker from the iron for honing and re-installing it is just a minute step.
I am still playing around comparing the two planes. Why if there is no difference in the resulting surface (which is all that should really matter)? There is some difference in the looks of the shavings, and I am just curious about. The difference is not consistent on all samples as it varies from negligible to obvious.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Warren Mickley]

Using the double iron plane is an art. It takes experience and judgement to do well. Exposure to a teacher is helpful. The placement of the cap iron depends on the quality of the wood, the severity of figure, the radial or tangential orientation, the thickness of the shaving etc. If it does not yield a surface superior to a 55 degree plane something is wrong.

Imagine a fellow who buys a violin. He goes on a violin forum and asks where to put his fingers to play Twinkle twinkle. The next day he reports that it works alright, but compared to a synthesizer it is way too fiddley. The synthesizer has it all over the violin for tone and pitch and you don't have to hold it under your neck. Would you hire this fellow to appraise your violin?

[Metod Alif]

Warren,
"The placement of the cap iron depends on the quality of the wood, the severity of figure, the radial or tangential orientation"
Given that the listed attributes can change every few inches in a single board - do you make continuous changes on your plane? After all, with a violin you keep 'adjusting' for each note to be played.
Maybe you can work each square inch (even here there can be considerable variation) of a given board with a suitable adjustment on the same plane. That could have artistic merit or artistic coherence. What about the effects of oxidation (even over only of a few weeks) on the level of initial smoothness?
Metod

[David Weaver]

Metod, that is strawmanning of fabricating a level of complexity that isn't there.

The more realistic scenario for an average set of goods is probably that the cap iron can be in about the same place for the vast majority of woods, but when you go to a softwood and take a heavy shaving, you may want to back it off because the force of the chip being sent back down in the wood will show in a slightly crushed surface. One that is, however, better than a high angle plane would look - it's just undesirable if you're looking for a bright clean finish.

In practice, you set the cap iron after you sharpen the plane and don't often (as in nearly never) reset it until the plane needs to be sharpened again.

I think warren is trying to make the point that there are subtle things you might do (like adjusting if a softwood surface appears to show a little too much influence) that someone who just picks up a plane and declares "i tested it, it's the same" will not be qualified to declare. It is a fair statement by warren.

[Metod Alif]

David,
I am very aware that, chipbreaker or not, a given setting on a plane would produce different results in different woods. It is obvious even with local 'tame' woods such as poplar, cherry, black walnut, maple when planed with the grain (where there is no threat of tearout). What I was trying to say is that one cannot deal in full measure with every change as it occurs on a given board, but only to average it out.
I piddled some more with the close settings of chipbreakers (more on the way) as I want to be informed by empirical evidence and not by some ideological principle. All that I can say so far is that, with the woods I have, I get the same (excellent) surface. Would that change with some other woods? Experiencing is believing.
Here is (I mentioned it before) a pragmatic question: Given two smooth surfaces, one slightly shinier. After a few weeks of oxidation (exposure to air), will such a different change - to more or less pronounced?
I do notice some differences between close breaker and not close or no breaker planes' behavior (I am chalking it up definitely in favor of the close breaker:)) but need more consistency. I will post my 'data'.
Best wishes,
Metod

[David Weaver]

No, they would both still maintain their difference over time. I'd suppose over time if you stick with the cap iron, you will probably come to prefer it, but it won't necessarily be due to finish strokes with a smoother, it'll be a myriad of other reasons. Larry has described the common pitch planed surface as burnished in the past, but I'd have to see it under a microscope to believe that most of the difference is due to burnishing (surely the pores of the wood would look closed).

Hitting a thickness mark with a fairly coarse shaving and no risk, having far fewer planes floating around the bench (three at any given time) and being able to plane basically anything no risk are probably the biggest reasons I've gone totally to the cap iron design instead of other planes.

I've had and still have all of the rest of the types of planes, even if I've gotten rid of a number of duplicates, but I like reaching to a small shelf next to the bench to pull off a plane better than going to a separate room where all of my other planes are and getting a specialty plane, etc.

If you stick with it for a while, it'll be interesting to see what you think in another year.

As a side thing, I've wiped out using any low angle planes, too. Not intentionally, it just happened when I realized that getting a smoother across the end grain on a panel to remove saw marks and work to a marked line is faster than using a much longer low angle jack plane that's got a lot more sole friction.

In the balance of all things, it just turns out to seem like a better way to work. Faster, cheaper, more efficient, lighter, a couple of planes to keep sharp (no picking up a plane that hasn't been used for a month to find it was put away dull, etc).

The only thing I'm really lacking is a good crisp coffin smoothing plane with a nice clean iron.

[Metod Alif]

David,
I am still collecting data. I pressed into the CB service my LN 4 1/2 to compare the results with LN 4 (and CB-less 55*). There are some curious (for me) happenings. I do not care anymore for the ergonomics of the LN's and vertical tote/handles in general and I found something more to my liking. If I get convinced about CBs, it will give me a 'legitimate' excuse to make me more planes - this time with CBs.
When the April issue of Popular woodworking comes out, I would like to return to the topic.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Noah Wagener]

There is some detailed description of this topic in A Woodworker's (not to be confused with A Scuba Diver's) Guide to Handplanes by Scott Wynn.

[george wilson]

Methold: LN planes have VERTICAL handles? I have bought about 9 of them between work and home shop. All of them SEEM to lean at a comfortable angle. Or,maybe it's like those trick bent stem cocktail glasses: When they looked straight,you'd had enough to drink?(This is 2nd. hand info from a pretty much non drinker):)

I am happy that Kees has written an article based upon his research of the chip breaker,apparently over some time. Old time drawings of carpenters at work planing show their chips shooting up out of their wooden planes as straight,flat looking chips. Not attractively curled as most have normally seen them. This is how chips from a very closely set chip breaker look. It would seem that this technique had been forgotten some time later in the 19th. Century,or in the early 20th. C..

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I am happy that Kees has written an article based upon his research of the chip breaker,apparently over some time. Old time drawings of carpenters at work planing show their chips shooting up out of their wooden planes as straight,flat looking chips. Not attractively curled as most have normally seen them. This is how chips from a very closely set chip breaker look. It would seem that this technique had been forgotten some time later in the 19th. Century,or in the early 20th. C..

You know, that's a good point. I'd remember wondering about that once when I saw those images.

[Metod Alif]

George,

(this must be done on an empty stomach:rolleyes:): Vertical - as seen lengthwise (heel to toe), slanted - as seen side-wise. With everyday objects, when we push something, we tend to grip it horizontally (visualize a shopping cart or a commercial door). When we pull, we tend to grip vertically (visualize commercial doors, refrigerators). Also, with 'vertical' totes, the direction of the force is heavily favored by the 'side' angle of the tote. That direction is not optimal for all planing situations. In my experience, it depends on the wood, etc.

"chips shooting up out of their wooden planes as straight,flat looking chips"
I am sure glad that you brought up this detail. It is very much present with Japanese planes (I do not own any, but there are many videos). What one sees is that the shavings sort of climb over the the iron - in the opposite direction of the plane being pushed. I am noticing some of this behavior as I experiment with close setting of the chipbreaker.
Here is a question: Do straight shavings mean that they experience less stress while being formed? I need to study the quality of the surface in greater detail to see if it depends on the shape of the shavings.
Best wishes,
Metod

[george wilson]

metod,your"Empty stomach" reply seems very condescending. I am not sure what you mean. Could you please elaborate? I am very much a newbie to attempting to visualize slanted objects. Please do explain.

[David Weaver]

Shavings that work flowing over the iron and travel smoothly backwards are not the result of cap iron influence. If the cap iron is stressing the chip, the chip will instead shoot straight up and it will appear wavy or stressed, showing that it was worked. Perhaps a vanilla bean shell is a good example of how it will look. It's not necessary for a chip to be stressed by the cap iron, though, unless it is heavy and would otherwise tear out.

Before the article on wood central was written, I gave equal opportunity to every plane I had, but figured (through use) that japanese planes were significantly less convenient for cap iron settings because you could not just set the cap iron by sight, and even once you have it set, when you change the depth of cut you can lose your cap iron setting. It's a nuisance compared to a bailey style plane.

In addition, the japanese plane will yield a nicer surface planing downhill if you spend the time to make sure the edge is without flaw, but it does not yield a better surface than a bailey plane when the cap iron is needed.

As far as the orientation of the handles on a plane, if they needed to be some other way than they were 200 years ago when planes were used by professionals and made by folks who had an immense knowledge of them - hundreds or thousands of folks did, not just a few like now - then the handles wouldn't have been the way they were.

[george wilson]

200 years ago? How about all the planes found in the Mary Rose excavations? Handles AS WE KNOW THEM have been around a very long time. A LOT longer than 200 mere years ago.

If Metod wants to put shopping cart handles or commercial door handles on his planes,that is fine.:) I'll stick to my usual,boring Western style handles. Frankly,I can't tell where he is coming from. He mentions commercial doors BOTH in his description of pulling and pushing. Well,which is it?:/ It seems like he thinks the entire history of Western plane handles is all wrong.

Why is there NO information about you on your personal site,Metod ?

[Metod Alif]

George,
I used an emoticon to indicate an attempt at humor, rather than being condescending (like you were using drinks to help with visualization). I am sorry for misunderstanding.
Best wishes,
Metod

[george wilson]

So,a sneering emoticon is showing humor? That emoticon is universally used to say "you are really dumb." I use a smiley to indicate humor,not a smirk.

[Metod Alif]

George,
on a 'commercial door, there is a horizontal (push) bar on one side and a vertical (pull) handle on the other. I was using commercial door bars and shopping cart as examples ow how we use 'horizontal' grip when pushing an object.
History of any kind is never wrong. It simply tells us what happened, regardless of whether we judge past events, designs, customs as right or wrong.
Many people prefer western style handles as a matter of ergonomics, but not all of them. Chinese and Japanese planes offer different ergonomics that suits many users just fine. Here in the West we also have Krenov style planes preferred by a good number of users. Also, not all 'traditional' Woodies have Bailey style totes and yet, many users like them.

"Why is there NO information about you on your personal site" When I registered for the site I did not pay attention to the profile page. What kind information about me do you wish and why would it matter? Would my posts have a different value?
" Frankly,I can't tell where he is coming from" Could you explain what you mean?
Best wishes,
Metod

[george wilson]

I mean your references to handles on doors as applied to planes aren't making any sense to me. What plane has a horizontal sideways handle? And I do not agree that all commercial doors have horizontal handles for pushing. Certainly I would not want a horizontal handle on a plane,so I don't understand your comparison to horizontal door handles.

It matters to the sense of community who we are and where we come from,and what our interests are. Otherwise,why would they ask for this information? There is a forum where I am a moderator that will not let you join if you do not fill out the information. You don't have to give sensitive info,like your address,phone #,etc..

Here are some planes I have made,with different kinds of totes,if you think I am unaware of plane styles. The big batch is one of the batches we made when I was master toolmaker in Williamsburg,making tools for the Historic Area.

[David Weaver]

I would definitely not want a shopping cart style handle on a plane, for two reasons mostly :
1) your sense of vertical with the plane (for jointing edges) would not be very good
2) most importantly, when you skew the plane in use, your arm would be contorted into uncomfortable positions

I'm not sure if metod actually means a potato shovel style handle or if he just means a plane with no handle at all. Different strokes for different folks, but comparing a shopping cart and a plane are not necessarily relevant. Door handles aren't helpful, because they're all over the board.

Shopping carts probably have horizontal handles because a full range of heights will be using the carts. I'll bet there's an engineer somewhere who has a great idea about why shopping carts are the way they are.

I'd still place the balance of burden of proof on what's best on what was being done 200-250 years ago when men used planes to do everything. It seems like the offset vertical handle was the way to go for control and anti-fatigue.

George - any time you need to rid yourself of some hardware and are feeling charitable, you know my address!!

[george wilson]

Pushing a plane with a horizontal handle seems like it would be difficult,and hard on the wrist. There were some Roman and French planes(perhaps others) that had horizontal handles in line with the long axis of the plane. But,those too would be hard on the bent wrist. I'd rather have the more normal style handle,or the coffin style smoother,where I can get the palm of my hand,up near the wrist and in line with it,in the usual way,to push with.

[Metod Alif]

I used a door and a shopping cart to illustrate what I mean by a 'horizontal grip'. I did not advocate the bars for plane handle just to illustrate.

George, I tried to explain that I meant my statement in a humorous way - I do not know how else to convince you. I admit that I do not know the 'official' emoticon vocabulary - the emoticon that I used seemed like a wink to me. Had I known that it means a smirk (saying that one is dumb), I would use something else, even a smiley. Smileys do not express well variety of 'good' intentions.
When you used 'drink', I took it as a humor. Suppose that I found it insulting (because many people get hurt by using alcohol). Then you would explain that you meant it in a humorous way and I would take your word.
Best wishes,
Metod

[jamie shard]

Sooo.... a practical question:

I have a old #606 that is my fore plane. I originally put a 8" radius camber on the blade and for the most part I like the speed it removes wood; however, the severity of the camber means the shaving is very narrow. I often get tear out as well.

What would be the traditional set up for this plane.... and how would you set up this plane, using current chipbreaker theory, to maximize the use of the fore plane?

My intuition is to create a 12" radius camber, do the same to the chipbreaker (which might not be possible due to the style I have which just has the thin lip - so I might have to buy a replacement and do some machining), and set the chipbreaker back a strong 64th.

Recommendations?

[David Weaver]

I used a door and a shopping cart to illustrate what I mean by a 'horizontal grip'. I did not advocate the bars for plane handle just to illustrate.


It would seem the remainder of the designs out there would facilitate a vertical grip, too. The continental smoothers, the coffin smoothers. Japanese and taiwanese/chinese planes are the exceptions that I can think of, but I don't find the japanese planes necessarily more comfortable to use, they are just different and if one is out of shape (as most of us are here in terms of a hand tool only production sense), it's nice to mix one in the dimensioning progression somewhere to use different muscles and keep the process moving.

Anyone who has pain or discomfort using a western handle will likely find trouble with the hand on the front of a japanese plane. Especially if any of it is related to arthritis.

[David Weaver]

Sooo.... a practical question:

I have a old #606 that is my fore plane. I originally put a 8" radius camber on the blade and for the most part I like the speed it removes wood; however, the severity of the camber means the shaving is very narrow. I often get tear out as well.

What would be the traditional set up for this plane.... and how would you set up this plane, using current chipbreaker theory, to maximize the use of the fore plane?

My intuition is to create a 12" radius camber, do the same to the chipbreaker (which might not be possible due to the style I have which just has the thin lip - so I might have to buy a replacement and do some machining), and set the chipbreaker back a strong 64th.

Recommendations?

I wouldn't change the radius. Move the cap iron close to the edge. Guess what your thickest shaving might be and set the cap iron back a bit from that. If it works a chip, you'll be able to tell - it probably won't, but it will still limit tearout to some extent.

If you have wood that is good enough to be all downgrain planing in one direction, make sure you still do that. With wood quality these days, though, that's not always possible.

I've got a heavy #6 that's probably similar in weight to a BR, and I maybe have a little more camber than that on it. I generally don't get any tearout that a jointer doesn't remove.

[george wilson]

Metod: I don't know where you are from. Perhaps a foreign country. They used to sell joke cocktail glasses in the USA which had bent stems on them. They said that when the stems looked straight,you had had enough to drink. It was a joke. I don;'t know if they still make those glasses or not. I am not much of a drinker myself. I just don't like the taste of alcohol. Beer is especially bad tasting to me.

[Metod Alif]

George,
Actually, I was born in Slovenia but have lived here longer than there. You might say that my adult life was formed (or mis-formed :)) here. Oh, I do like the taste of alcohol-based drinks - I did give them up though when I was 17. I have seen some nasty stuff caused by alcohol consumption and decided to play it safe. Now I use my woodworking mistakes to get into 'un-sober' state.
Best wishes,
Metod

[Metod Alif]

David,
"I don't find the japanese planes necessarily more comfortable to use"
I do not own any kanna. Handling same size wood blocks gives me a good idea of what comfort they would provide. Not my cup of tea either.
I am guessing that the tradition is more important than the comfort of the craftsman. Toshio Odate provides a few clues in his books.
Aside: I am still chewing on chipbreakers and might bug you with some questions later. I'll open a new tread s this one is getting long.
Best wishes,
Metod