bevel up wooden planes

[Noah Wagener]

I am interested in using the low angle bevel up planes but i can not afford them. I particularly want to try the toothed blades. I work with old construction lumber with a lot of knots and despite what was written in the "upcoming chipbreaker article" thread; I do not think i could dimension quickly with no tearout. The grain swirls around the knots and trying to hog a lot off the knot itself is not something i can do. (As an aside; how can you set a chipbreaker like that on a crowned jack blade?)

I never came across a bevel up woodie but I did come across a blog by Derek about making a strike block plane with the same effective pitch as a low angle bevel up jack . Would a toothed blade work bevel down? I saw George was using one for veneering but I am looking to do work like a scrub plane with it.

In Derek's blog he stated the the 37 degree bed really was testing the strength of the block. Is this because of the wedge or the blade wanting to dig down into the wood? If it is the former could you use a lever cap instead of a wedge on a 12 degree wooden bed?

[David Weaver]

As a chipbreaker fanatic, you can definitely do just fine around knots. Each prep step will reduce the tearout behind them and the smoother will eliminate it. The thinner the shaving, the closer the wood on the back side of the knot will be in finish surface to what the front side looks like.

You'll find that most vintage toothed irons are for veneer work.

What you can't avoid is the fact that some knots are just hard to plane. The cap iron will benefit you greatly, though, because the worst thing about knots is chips lifting and stalling your plane in a heavy cut (which is extremly hard on your hands, elbows an shoulders).

A wooden bed just isn't going to tolerate a low angle because the edge strength at the bottom of the bed won't be nearly as good as it is with metal. If you look at vintage strike block planes, you could probably consider how they're set up to be the minimum you'd want to go. If they could've gone shallow for end grain planes and striking planes, they probably would have. The fact that they didn't suggests that you don't want to waste your time trying to make a copy of a low angle metal plane out of wood, you'll just have a lot of time sunk into something that will not support an iron. (the result will be breakage, and not just undesirable use).

You can use a vintage toothing iron to dimension wood without issue, though, but find one that's fairly coarsely toothed if you want to do that. Some of them have very fine teeth.

You are better off double-ironing it with a non-toothed blade, though - it's faster and the result is the same.

The other thing you have to consider is clearance, even if you make something like a plane with a 37 degree bed, and run it bevel down, you'll be sharpening your iron very often either for lack of clearance or because you're pushing the final angle of the iron and getting chipping because of it.

Everything you want to do can be done at common pitch with a cap iron - it can be done faster with that, more cheaply and just as neatly.

[Steve Voigt]

You've touched on a whole bunch of topics here, which are not necessarily related. It sounds like your most immediate problem is planing knotty lumber. The best solution is to not use it! However, the second-best solution is to use bevel down, double iron planes. You can't hog off material with knots; they are just too hard. So, start with a jack plane. It may be helpful to use less camber on the iron than you would if you were using straight-grained stock. .030 or so is probably plenty. Set the chipbreaker so it's as close as possible at the corners; it can even be flush with the corners. Set the depth of cut so that the corners are not protruding from the sole.
After roughing, switch to a trying or smoothing plane with just a bit of camber (a few thou is plenty) and set the chip breaker as close as possible. This is the only technique that has worked for me with knots. If you can't get all the tearout removed, scraping and/or sanding is the last resort.
To your other questions:
Toothed blades can be used bevel down or up, but they were originally designed to be used bevel down at very high angles (70° to 100°). If you can't afford bevel up planes (and I think you're better off without them, honestly), you could buy an old toothed blade on ebay and build a plane around it. There are a couple good blog posts about toothing planes, one from the Anthony Hay blog and another from Patrick Edwards. Using toothed blades could work, but I don't think they will work better than a double iron plane, and if you already have the double irons, it will be your cheapest option.
For bevel down woodies, search this forum; there was a thread a while back. The short answer is that a low angle wooden plane will self-destruct. Even with a lever cap, the plane will be much too fragile at the bottom of the bed.

Edit: looks like David already covered the important points while I was typing.

[george wilson]

Wooden bottoms on real low angle planes just get too thin and slivery to not give way where the blade comes through the bottom. Planing tries to suck the iron down,and that will crack the edges of the bottom.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

If you want to try a toothed iron plane, they can be had cheaply if you look in the usual places. I'd think you could also just use a toothed iron in a high bed angle coffin smoother. It's not going to be the 70-100 degrees that Steve pointed out though. I have one I mess with periodically, and the problem is, the toothed surface still needs work when you are done, so what do you use? A smoother is right, but what about the figured areas? A scraper, but they are less than ideal on that grain too. With veneer work, who cares if there are tiny grooves all over the surface, but different story on finished work.

An anecdotal story that may help you, I was messing with some curly grained oak a couple nights ago. I wanted a bevel on the edge of it, so I was just eyeballing it with 62 (bevel up). I couldn't get it to quit making a bit of tearout, even after trying a whole bunch of different stuff. Out of curiosity, I grabbed a Norris smoother, it has a higher bed angle, chipbreaker set extremely close to the edge and a very tight mouth. The tear out went away. I do think some of that was do to the heft of the plane as well. It keep the momentum smooth, which seems to help. One less vibration I suppose.

[David Weaver]

Infills are definitely easier to push over bad wood.

[Noah Wagener]

You guys never tell me what I want to hear. I was kind of hoping that because knots are like hard endgrain that a low angled plane would go through them easier and a toothed blade would only help more. You seem to be saying that even if i ponied up the $350 + for low angled jack and a toothed blade i would not be able to go through knots quickly. This stuff is hard to deal with. It always comes with tearout from the machines and i think the machines deflect somewhat as well and leave humps around knots. Taking thin shavings takes a long time to get down to below the machine tearout.

As these strike block planes seem rather rare, how do Japanese planes work for shooting endgrain? I have read that 37.5 is a pretty common pitch for their planes. I suppose they'll be chippy in endgrain? What did people shoot with before iron bodied planes? Strike blocks seem pretty rare. I have seen people using common pitch planes on proud dovetails.

And how did the mitre jack get replaced but the shooting board? On an English forum someone said that it is too much a bother because you are always shaving the jigs but i do not see why. If you run your plane askew of the work you could only take a shaving or two in a 2 inch swath and never anymore.

[David Weaver]

Japanese planes shoot just fine. A good quality iron won't be chippy as long as there isn't the temptation to put a razor thin bevel edge on it.

I like a low angle jack better if I'm choosing ideal, though.

For the most part, if you look at the old stuff and they didn't do what you're thinking of doing, you'll know it's probably not something worth your time.

Knots are a pain no matter what. Something like an infill will cruise through them more easily because of weight, but infills are like anything else - there are good tight ones, and there are planes that need work. I wouldn't advocate getting one just to go through knots.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

In Derek's blog he stated the the 37 degree bed really was testing the strength of the block. Is this because of the wedge or the blade wanting to dig down into the wood? If it is the former could you use a lever cap instead of a wedge on a 12 degree wooden bed?

I just reread that, and to add to what George already said, the bottom of the plane is actually not even touching the wood right behind the cutter, but the pressure of what the blade is doing is all concentrated there. I'd think it increases when you hit a knot. Probably why so many low angle block planes have cracks.

[george wilson]

Noah,why don't you just get into adjusting the chip breaker very close to the edge of the plane to avoid tearout? There has been tons of discussion about it here. The easy way to set the C.B. is to hold the blade and chip breaker vertically,bearing down against a piece of soft wood(but not shoving it INTO the surface of the wood.) Let the CB rest on the surface,and carefully tighten it.

The mating surface of the chip breaker will have to be fitted very closely against the blade,to avoid chips wedging under it. The CB needs to be only a few thousandths from the cutting edge to work properly. Go back and search for discussion of using the chip breaker.

You can avoid tearout on the thickness planer by grinding a back bevel on the FRONT edge of the planer's knives. This back bevel will cause the machine to scrape rather than cutting. I know people who have been doing this since the early 80's or maybe 70's. One guy used his 12" disc sander to back bevel his planer blades just by eye. However,he is an experienced craftsman,and really good at taking off the last few thousandths needed to fit wood inside the infill planes they were making at that time. Now,he runs an architectural model making shop. He could do this back bevel in 1 continuous piece,and consistently on each knife. Now,he wasn't doing this on lunch box planers,which have very thin knives.

Speaking of lunch box planers,I have actually found that,with SHARP knives,they could do better than my 20" Powermatic at work(with the knives ground in the usual,normal way without back bevels.) I have experienced this smoother planing with a Delta lunchbox planer. I keep one in my home shop should my larger planer not do as well as I want.I can't back bevel its knives because I am using Dispoz a Blades,which install very quickly,but are oily .040" thick,similar to lunch box planer knives. I must say anyway,my 15" Taiwan made Bridgewood planer does better than that not-too-old 20" Powermatic we had. The bed rollers are closer together,for 1 thing. It runs smooth as silk.

[Noah Wagener]

George, I definitely experiment with the chipbreaker. In the above i am talking about using a jack to dimension construction grade lumber. I do things based off reading and every book says i should crown a jack blade and a jointer blade as well; just not as much. If I set the chipbreaker as small as you suggest it would protrude over the corners of the blade and below the sole. Should I not be crowning blades? I also have read that the breaker needs to be set about the same as the shaving you are taking or it becomes very difficult to push. I can have moderate success avoiding tearout around knots taking fine shavings with a fine set chipbreaker. It would just take me forever to plane down to the depth of the initial tearout left by the milling machines ( I was referring to how the lumber was initially milled, i do not have a planer) Even if i could set a plane and chipbreaker to take large or medium tearout free passes i do not think i could plane knots at that depth. Aren't knots brutal on a blade? Especially at common pitch? I tend to pare them with a chisel before i plane.

Anyways, sorry for the lack of pith. Did you make many strike block planes? And do you know why Leonard Lee wrote that planemakers prize square edged skewed paring chisels for the beds?


danke

[Noah Wagener]

As far as setting the chipbreaker up; how large should that 80 degree micro bevel be?

[Kees Heiden]

Hi Noah, 0.5 mm is plenty.

Planing construction lumber can be a pain. The knots in pine usually aren't too bad, but we have some spruce overhere that has rock hard knots, while the wood around it is so soft that it tears very easily. Personally I think it is not the most suitable wood for handplaning, but because it seems you are stuck with it, let me give you some hints. No idea if it wil be enough.

- If you want to experiment with a toothed blade, get a Kunz one and use it in a normal Stanley plane. That's cheap and should work just as well as the bevel up planes with toothed iron.
- Do as much of the dimensioning across the grain. This pushes a lot easier and the wood doesn't tear nearly as badly. Watch out for spelching the far edge though.
- Sharp, sharp sharp! I believe in avoiding tearout in this stuff sharp is the most important. Of course the knots won't improve the sharpness, so hone often.
- You don't need very agressively cambered blades. These are more for the handtool only workshop. Dressing up milled lumer, you won't remove that much wood. Camber them like David describes.
- Setting the capiron at just a shaving's width from the edge is really too close! In a jack plane I would take 0.2 mm thick shavings and have the capiron at 0.4 mm or so. That won't completely eliminate tearout, but it helps to keep the damage under control. Then you can remove it later with the smooth plane with a much finer setting.

[David Weaver]

As far as setting the chipbreaker up; how large should that 80 degree micro bevel be?

It shouldn't be 80 degrees. It should either be the profile of the stanley plane cap iron as is (if you're using that), a gradual rounded bevel on an old plane, or something closer to 50 if you want to use a flat profile. 80 degrees has a narrower window of effectiveness and on either side of it, it's doing nothing or it's smashing the chip back into the wood creating a surface that's not as good.

Once you put an 80 degree bevel on something, it will be a lot harder to go to 50, too. You can always go to 80 later if you're at the end of your patience string.

I've had better quality and less resistance on the plane using a curved profile.

[Noah Wagener]

Cool. That 50 degrees matches what my handplane book says. The author says the bevel should be 90 to 110 degrees compared to the surface of the work. I'll have to watch that video again. maybe the blade was bedded at a lower angle. Or I suppose the machine does not mind if it is harder to push.I am sure this has been discussed before but it seems to me that the chipbreaker is simulating a high bedding angle yet keeping a low shearing angle. It reminds of those old Remington micro sheen commercials. One blade bends the hair back so the other can cut it. Someone must have not been able to afford a bunch of different pitch planes and came up with the breaker.

I'll look into the Kunz blade. I wonder why Veritas and Lie_Nielsen only offer them bevel up.

[David Weaver]

It reminds of those old Remington micro sheen commercials.

"Cuts as clean as a higher angle plane or your money back"

It's mechanically slightly different than a high angle plane, but the effect is the same, the chip isn't allowed to lift.

I think the video may have concluded that for a machine, 80 degrees was good. I don't remember what the bed angle was, but if it was similar to an 8/10bu japanese plane, that's somewhere around 40 degrees once the taper of the iron is accounted for.

At any rate, practical experience with hand tools is just a bit different than the video. We don't know what they determined was acceptable, their data is at discrete points, and there's always something that will be slightly different in practice. In this case, the folks working by hand will have a slightly different answer because hand planes aren't just used at discrete chip thicknesses nor with just one wood. You'll find that when an 80 degree cap iron is engaged, in soft or even in some medium hardwoods, you can see that the chip was smashed down into the surface of the board being planed, and the resistance doesn't feel quite as smooth nor is the chip affected in quite as desirable of a way.

A 50 degree effective bevel, or a curved leading edge (even better) will have a much wider range where it is actually working the chip, but not in drastic "smash it right back into the surface" fashion.

80 degrees will get you a workable surface, but while you're doing what you're doing, you might as well make things easy if you can.

[Kees Heiden]

At the other hand, the japanese handplane users seem to tend to use an 80 degree bevel:
http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.nl/2012/07/chip-off-old-block-iv.html

And I've read in old German texts even 90 degrees mentioned. But the English prefered 45 seemingly, if we can believe Holtzapffel.

[David Weaver]

I'm not sure why the japanese users prefer that, that's specifically where I used an 80 degree bevel the most, due to laziness with the cap iron on a plane that had a flat on the front (it was easier to put an 80 degree flat on it than something else).

All of the virtues of a japanese plane (the fabulous surface on softwoods and medium hardwoods) went away immediately when an 80 degree setting was used and the performance (and time spent because the iron and cap iron aren't set together) was not as good as it is on a basic stanley plane. Of course, that implies that the cap iron is actually working the chip, which is where the finish declines with 80 degrees. If the cap iron isn't working the chip, it doesn't make any difference where it's set.

Something in the 50 degree range would probably make a japanese plane preserve the nicer surface finish, possibly a few degrees higher to compensate for the bed if needed. I was pretty disappointed by that, because I thought that we would be onto something where we could use a japanese plane and get the bright surface but eliminate tearout. And I have more money in japanese planes than western planes, so I was hoping that I could somehow justify using them more based on their performance with a cap iron.

It may be possible to use 55 degrees or something and get a better surface, but they can't be set permanently until the next sharpening in 10 seconds like you can do with a western plane. It's more fiddling and then if you adjust the depth of cut, sometimes the cap iron moves and sometimes it doesn't. To top it off, some of the japanese planes don't have their dai pins installed correctly to use the second iron, which can be solved by making another dai, but one doesn't expect to do that on a $600 plane (one of my expensive smoothers is in that category, despite having a hand made ledged dai - I guess that's akin to the Lie Nielsen issue of not having the cap irons drilled in the right place - nobody else seems to care but us - even in japan).

At any rate, as warren has stated before, the western planes often were rounded (including the older planes - maybe warren said always), and the stanley profile is rounded. It would be my first choice for those types of planes regardless of what's common on japanese planes.

[Jack Curtis]

... how do Japanese planes work for shooting endgrain? I have read that 37.5 is a pretty common pitch for their planes. I suppose they'll be chippy in endgrain? What did people shoot with before iron bodied planes? Strike blocks seem pretty rare. I have seen people using common pitch planes on proud dovetails. ...

Japanese planes are usually bevel down, they work great on end grain, probably because the blades are heavy and very sharp.

[David Weaver]

But the English prefered 45 seemingly, if we can believe Holtzapffel.

I'd be inclined to in the absence of anything else.

I wonder why the germans preferred 90 degrees. Maybe we are more picky about surfaces now than they were back then?

What have you found so far, btw? Because I know you're in the same boat as me - you're actually fiddling with these things. I don't love the 80 degree setting because it seems that the cap iron is either not engaged at all, or in a heavy shaving it goes from not engaged to doing way more than it needs to and smashing the chip back. When you feel the surface, it feels hairy. Certainly it's better than tearout, though.

The german texts and most of the continental stuff never gets very far over here. On one hand, that's good - you can find older continental smoothing planes over here VERY cheaply. On the other hand, there's an entire continent of plane design and use that people here think is awkward because the mouth is in the middle of the plane (I don't find it that way, I love the continental smoothers especially).

[Jack Curtis]

...It may be possible to use 55 degrees or something and get a better surface, but they can't be set permanently until the next sharpening in 10 seconds like you can do with a western plane. It's more fiddling and then if you adjust the depth of cut, sometimes the cap iron moves and sometimes it doesn't. To top it off, some of the japanese planes don't have their dai pins installed correctly to use the second iron, which can be solved by making another dai, but one doesn't expect to do that on a $600 plane (one of my expensive smoothers is in that category, despite having a hand made ledged dai - I guess that's akin to the Lie Nielsen issue of not having the cap irons drilled in the right place - nobody else seems to care but us - even in japan). ...

Why would anyone expect a dai to work with a cap iron/chipbreaker? If used, a subblade would use the pin; but except in particularly gnarly (sp?) wood, they are seldom used.

[David Weaver]

That's my point. They don't appear to be used often enough even for the hand made dais to always have the pins in the right place to actually use them (i.e., the pin is located too close to the iron so that you can get the second iron in, but it can't advance all the way to the cutting edge.

Every signed dai that I have has the pin in the right place, though. The escapement in high quality dais obscures view of the end of the iron pretty significantly, which also makes setting a pain.

I don't imagine that anyone over there regularly uses what would be equivalent to our low quality second growth cherry and other mildly figured woods that we have that aren't expected to be figured.

[Kees Heiden]

I went all the way down to 30 degrees, but you need to set it very very close to the edge to get any effect. And the tip of the capiron becomes really sharp and vulnerable at that angle. I find the capirons work fine between 40 and 50 degrees. And like you say, it gets too easy to compress the fibers when using higher angles and thus having to push the plane way to hard. The crinkley shavings you get also tend to clog wooden plane mouths. So, at the moment all my capirons are somewhere in the middle, like you do. I get perfect surfaces at these settings, while pushing isn't too hard.

BTW, I am too stupid or too blind to see much difference in surface finish from high or low or whatever angle.

[David Weaver]

I went all the way down to 30 degrees, but you need to set it very very close to the edge to get any effect. And the tip of the capiron becomes really sharp and vulnerable at that angle. I find the capirons work fine between 40 and 50 degrees. And like you say, it gets too easy to compress the fibers when using higher angles and thus having to push the plane way to hard. The crinkley shavings you get also tend to clog wooden plane mouths. So, at the moment all my capirons are somewhere in the middle, like you do. I get perfect surfaces at these settings, while pushing isn't too hard.

BTW, I am too stupid or too blind to see much difference in surface finish from high or low or whatever angle.

Could be in what you're planing. Most of the stuff that I plane is between softwood and 1200 janka. The stuff like cherry that's sub-1000 shows a pretty substantial difference. The stuff like beech and hard maple that's closer to 1300-1400 seems to show less difference. I only plane the harder woods when I'm making planes, and they're often quartered and easier to plane on the faces of the board because of that.

Or maybe I just have keen eyes (they are about 20/10) to go with dull wits. I can definitely confirm what I see by feeling the surfaces. If they don't feel slicked, that usually corresponds with a bunched up chip.

[Kees Heiden]

Feeling is a good tip. Usually I am better at feeling then seeing.

[Noah Wagener]

Do you guys rely solely on chipbreaker or do you have higher pitched planes? On a cambered blade do you match the breaker? I am suprised the Japanese do not use the breaker much because they seem to put them on planes that do not have them in western versions. Thanks for discussing setting them. That seemed like it would be difficult to me. Doe it sometimes move the blade as well?

And this guy peed on it.

[David Weaver]

Yeah, and it really tied the room together...bummer man...bummer

>Do you guys rely solely on chipbreaker or do you have higher pitched planes<

I have higher pitched planes, but a lot fewer now. I don't actually use the higher pitched planes now, because there is no wood that I've encountered thus far that any of my high pitched planes reduce tearout better than a basic stanley #4.

I've tried everything I can think of with a cap iron, too. Japanese planes, premium planes, stanley bailey planes, coffin smoothers, and continental style planes. The stanley 4 is easier to use and set than all of the other ones for learning the cap iron, so if you're using something else, I'd suggest the 4 with a stock cap iron profile that's been cleaned up and that is in good shape.

[Jack Curtis]

That's my point. They don't appear to be used often enough even for the hand made dais to always have the pins in the right place to actually use them (i.e., the pin is located too close to the iron so that you can get the second iron in, but it can't advance all the way to the cutting edge.

Every signed dai that I have has the pin in the right place, though. The escapement in high quality dais obscures view of the end of the iron pretty significantly, which also makes setting a pain.

I don't imagine that anyone over there regularly uses what would be equivalent to our low quality second growth cherry and other mildly figured woods that we have that aren't expected to be figured.

There may be two sizing issues causing this fitting problem: 1) the pin's too close, as you said; or 2) the subblade is too thick or thin, as often for the cheaper blades the subblade build is contracted out.

All of mine fit fine, including the ones Pam and I built. However, I tend to set one landed and subbladed smoother aside for special use; so mostly we have "naked" blades in use, their subblades labeled and stored.

[David Weaver]

I agree on setting most aside, I've done the same. On any planes I use for coarse work, I've either made a pinless dai or tapped the pin out of the dai so shavings don't get hung up on it - those no chance of cap iron on those planes.

The plane I get no fit on is my favorite plane (an inukubi plane by nakano, which is like a supple white steel and very easy to sharpen). I will probably make another dai for it at some point if I ever get the urge to use it on something difficult.

My signed/stamped dai planes are either higher pitched or they are on planes I don't love quite as much - which is probably a good reminder to sell the planes I don't love as much.

[Kees Heiden]

I have two higher pitched planes, an Ulmia at 49 degrees and a non descript infill also at 49. But that's not enough to see much better results regarding tearout compared to a 45 degree plane. Luckily they both have a capiron and they work very well with that.

My wooden foreplane happens to have a cambered capiron, a bit less camber then the iron itself. It came to me like that. It's a sweet plane.

[Steve Voigt]

I have two higher pitched planes, an Ulmia at 49 degrees and a non descript infill also at 49. But that's not enough to see much better results regarding tearout compared to a 45 degree plane. Luckily they both have a capiron and they work very well with that.

My wooden foreplane happens to have a cambered capiron, a bit less camber then the iron itself. It came to me like that. It's a sweet plane.

Kees, what is your impression of the cambered cap iron? I recently cambered the cap iron of my Stanley no.5 to match the cutter, just to see what would happen…the jury is still out, but my initial impression is that, contrary to what is commonly said, the cambered cap iron is really an improvement. One problem I have is that I'm using a thicker cutting iron, so with the cap iron set close, I can't extend the irons far enough to get a really deep cut. But that problem could be solved with a different iron.
It's very interesting that you say the cap iron is slightly less cambered than the cutter…because another problem I found was that the center of the cap iron tends to drag and leave witness marks on the wood, if the cap iron is set too close. So I was considering exactly what you have--cambering the cap iron half as much as the cutter itself (hope that makes sense).
Anyway, would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[Kees Heiden]

Hi Steve,

Here is a picture of my wooden foreplane iron. Not the best picture, sorry. The camber on the capiron is rather straight in the middle and bends away towards the corners. It now actually almost touches the edge at two point. It is very crudely shaped, I should redo that someday.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll266/Kees2351/temp/IMG_1163_zps4e4d2440.jpg (http://s290.photobucket.com/user/Kees2351/media/temp/IMG_1163_zps4e4d2440.jpg.html)

I planed some quarter sawn oak. I don't know what species, something European. As you can see in the next picture it has a knot in the flat sawn face which makes for interesting grain in the QS face. I couldn't plane it without tearout with the foreplane, but the tearout never was very bad. Just some scruffy feeling areas. 0.2 mm thick shavings, capiron about 0.4 mm from the edge in the middle.

With a few passes of my Stanley smoothing plane the wood turned out absolutely smooth. For the record, smoothing plane is a Stanley #4, Ray Iles iron, original capiron with bevel at 43 degrees, set 0.2 mm from the edge, wide open mouth. Shaving thickness is 0.05mm.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll266/Kees2351/temp/IMG_1165_zps0a02f80e.jpg (http://s290.photobucket.com/user/Kees2351/media/temp/IMG_1165_zps0a02f80e.jpg.html)

[David Weaver]

I am the one who always says there is no reason to camber the cap iron.

The reason for this is that the concept that the cap iron would need to be cambered suggests that the implication is there is a heavy shaving at the edges of the iron in a heavy cut, and the cap iron needs to be moved back to accomodate it. There are two problems with this:

The cap iron in the middle of the plane never advances below the mouth of the plane. If the iron is so cambered that it doesn't project from the mouth, it will not be in the cut where it doesn't project.

The part of the cut that limits how close the cap iron is to the bottom of the plane is the center of the cut, and not the edges. The cap iron will never work the chip at the edges while it's working it in the middle on a heavy cambered cut - if you so choose to set it closely enough.

If you have a very cambered iron and you want some cap iron influence, it is literally no problem at all if the edges of the cap iron overlap the iron and hang off into space - that is just a confirmation that that part of the iron is so cambered that it will be entirely recessed well into the plane in the middle of the cut. If wasn't, the cap iron would have to be way down into the cut, and the cap iron can't even be used right at the mouth of the plane, let alone in the cut.

What's done then, though, is to make that particular cap iron less compatible with smoothing. It has no effect in a cambered cut, but if you went back to a straight cut, it's been clipped and will be ineffective.

It may be aesthetically pleasing to do it, but it is counter productive.

The same is true even on a "Charlesworth" camber on a smoother - the cap iron will be recessed enough so that it is not down in the wood during the cut, and the cut at the edges of the plane will not be limited by it, either. The center is still the limiting factor. If there are scuffed surfaces at the edge of the wood, then something else is wrong - perhaps there is somewhere in the plane at the corners where shavings hang up (this is common when they hang up in the corners on a wood plane at the abutment or wedge points). That is a feeding issue with the plane and not a cap iron issue, though.

[Noah Wagener]

.... it is literally no problem at all if the edges of the cap iron overlap the iron and hang off into space.


Now you are getting into the "patented lift and cut technology", with the cap ahead of cutter. I think it was Norelco and not Remington.You need to develop a double iron straight razor. It would work on end grain. Put the fibers under tension. Is pine endgrain a sharpness test because it is not as dense and the fibers are not backed as strongly and can be pushed away from a dull blade? I find dried out doug fir floor joists to have the nastiest end grain to work. Especially the fast growth stuff. It has a huge variance in hardness from early to late growth rings. I soak it in Linseed oil.

I don't know. Jammies! they had Yodas and bleep on'em.

[David Weaver]

Douglas Fir is an awful wood once it has dried for several decades. Parts of it turn to splinters and the rest turns to powder.

You're right about norelco lift and cut, remington and the microscreen was "shaves as close as a blade, or your money back".

Now, getting either to chase down those hairs that grow parallel to your face after two days of not shaving, and doing so without razorburning the entire area...something entirely different! I bought into those advertisements hook line and sinker in school, bought one of each, went back to a bic disposable after a little bit of use from each. Then the braun...same thing. Glad to be rid of those smelly things!!

Kind of like woodworking - lots of "improvements" offered to allow you to think that it's better to avoid learning a skill (be it straight razor shaving or using a cap iron). Few of them turn out to be real improvements!!

[Steve Voigt]

I wasn't singling you out Dave, other people have said this as well.
Everything you say makes sense. A couple points though:



… the concept that the cap iron would need to be cambered suggests that the implication is there is a heavy shaving at the edges of the iron in a heavy cut, and the cap iron needs to be moved back to accomodate it.


This is the opposite of what I was thinking. My purpose in cambering the cap iron was to get closer to the middle, not farther from the edges. Since the chip is heaviest in the middle, that is where the most tearout will occur, so it seems like it might be advantageous to have the cap iron close at the middle.
If you can get the cap iron closer at the middle, then it would not seem to make sense that "has no effect." Again, my initial impression is that it does have an effect (but I'm entirely willing to admit that my anecdotal experience is not the same as proof).




… If you have a very cambered iron and you want some cap iron influence, it is literally no problem at all if the edges of the cap iron overlap the iron and hang off into space - that is just a confirmation that that part of the iron is so cambered that it will be entirely recessed well into the plane in the middle of the cut. If wasn't, the cap iron would have to be way down into the cut, and the cap iron can't even be used right at the mouth of the plane, let alone in the cut.


Perhaps I'm just not seeing it, but I don't understand why the cap iron can't project into the mouth. Maybe not on a Stanley, but on a wide-open woodie, it seems like it should be workable.
I am not a big fan of the "overlap" strategy; certainly it works, but my intent is to have the corners of the blade just barely disappear into the mouth, so that I'm using 95% of the width of the iron. Otherwise, why not just use a plane with a narrower iron?



The same is true even on a "Charlesworth" camber


What's that?

[Kees Heiden]

David is right of course. The capiron shouldn't project below the surface of the sole of the plane. If it is deeper then the sole, it hinders the shaving. You can get away with it for a few hundreds of a mm, but pushing the plane becomes increasingly heavy. The capiron in facts works like a shaving depth limiter like that. So, if the capiron is straight and sits just above the sole surface, then that should be the ideal spot for a cambered iron in a jack plane. Of course, with a deep camber and shavings in the region of 8 to 10 thou thick, you shouldn't expect a perfectly smooth, tearout free surface in difficult wood.

I really need to work on the edge of the capiron from my wooden foreplane, it is in pretty bad shape now. So I might just as well make it straight.

[David Weaver]

If the cap iron projects through the mouth into the cut, the plane will stall in the wood and you won't be able to push it. I guess I should've clarified that by through the mouth I mean literally past the bottom of the sole.

It's nice to have a very cambered jack where the cut is only part of the width of the blade. The extra width of the plane makes the plane a lot nicer to use askew. On the remainder of the cuts, you can go full width following a jack with a plane and with a heavy cut as long as whatever you're using has enough weight. If you use something light, it will punish you, but it won't do so with more camber and a scalloping cut.

Anyway, the charlesworth camber (which isn't a standardized name, I guess) is what David Charlesworth does in his sharpening video. He counts strokes on the corners of an iron with an eclipse jig to have a very very gradual camber that is precisely created and that has full sharpness all the way to the edge. If you're literally finish smoothing with a plane (nothing else at all after it), it's a very nice method to use because the iron is sharp to the edge but the corners don't contact the wood.

At any rate, the overlap is awkward looking, but because the cap iron can never project below the sole of the plane, it literally is telling you that you won't be using the part of the iron that's overlapped in the cut, and if you want to use that part of the iron in the cut in a deeper shaving, you'll have to move the cap iron back - just as you would with a cambered cap iron.