How to read grain direction?

[Dave Cullen]

What techniques do you guys use to determine grain direction before planing a board? I try to feel the "fuzz", kinda like petting a dog, for the way the grain lays down. But some boards are too smooth to be obvious. Getting it wrong can give you tearout, even with a sharp tool.

[Mel Fulks]

We were taught to look at the direction of the little punctuation mark sized dashes ,but some woods don't have any. They are a much better indicator than the direction of the larger ring growth type grain. And,of course ,sometimes they both go
in the same direction.

[Daniel Rode]

I don't know much, but I know a little bit.

If I can see it, I typically look at the side of the board to see what angle the grain runs. This is a pretty good indicator most of the time. Sometimes, I can look at the cathedral shapes and tell the Direction, but I'm wrong often enough that I don't trust it. If the board has enough texture, I feel for what direction is smoothest and lastly, I take a fine cut with the plane and see that tells me. The sound from the plane is more telling that the look.

Setting the chipbreaker very close (with a very sharp iron) eliminates tor minimizes tearout for me. So even if I do plane against the grain, the results are often just fine anyway.


What techniques do you guys use to determine grain direction before planing a board? I try to feel the "fuzz", kinda like petting a dog, for the way the grain lays down. But some boards are too smooth to be obvious. Getting it wrong can give you tearout, even with a sharp tool.

[david charlesworth]

Dave,

I look at the edges of the board, with magnification if necessary. I am looking for the lie of the tubes, relative to the adjacent surface. I mark these slopes with pencil.

The tubes line up with the fibres. What I look at are tubes with their sides cut away. They look like scratches made with a pin. Low raking light makes this easier.

Some timbers easy Black Walnut, some difficult Pear, Ebony.

If all else fails The "suck it and see" method should work.

I like to preserve planing directions to the end of the job.

David Charlesworth

[Prashun Patel]

I wish I were better at reading it with my eyes. I've made enough errors that I now 'read' it with a block plane on the non-show side first, and then plane the opposite way on the show side.

For some reason, I tend to find boards that have switchy grain, which moots the question of grain direction and begs for a sharp blade.

[Jim Koepke]

This often depends on the condition and the piece of wood being worked.

I was working some alder a few days ago and it looked like terrible tear out. Turned out to be very thin specks of medullary rays.

The simple answer is to go with the rising grain.

Plain direction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Grain rising ///////////////////////////////////

Kind of a crude graphic, hope it works.

There is also the situation with flat sawn having what are called 'cathedrals' on the surface. This is in flat sawn lumber. If you look at the end it will show a bit of a curve in the end grain.

My way to remember how to go with this is if the end is a cup or 'smile' my plane goes with the 'cathedrals.' If the end is down or looks like a 'frown' my plane goes against the 'cathedrals' or mows them down. Go with the smiles mow down the frowns.

Of course there is always some twisting grain in the wood pile. For these the plane is set to a very fine shaving. After the majority of smoothing is done the direction is reversed to remove the tear out. With a sharp blade and a fine setting this usually works for me.

If you haven't already read about setting the chip breaker Google > setting a cap iron <. David Weaver posted an article at Wood central detailing the effects of setting the chip breaker as shown in a video from Japan.

When I started to answer this there were no replies. When finished there were a bunch. One I do not understand:


If all else fails The "suck it and see" method should work.

David, could you shine a little enlightenment on this method?

jtk

[david charlesworth]

Jim,

A slightly rude Yorkshire phrase! Translates to, try a thin shaving in both directions and see which is working better. This can be done by machine or by hand.

Best wishes,
David

[Jim Koepke]

Jim,

A slightly rude Yorkshire phrase! Translates to, try a thin shaving in both directions and see which is working better. This can be done by machine or by hand.

Best wishes,
David

Thanks, the expression may mean something in Yorkshire, but I was clueless.

jtk

[Brian Hale]

On a relatively smooth board I can often use one of my thin card scrapers. By bending more than normal and trying to take a shaving, one direction will be more grabby and I'll start planing in the opposite direction.

Brian :)

[Don Rogers]

Jim,
Thanks for pointing out David Weaver's article on setting the cap iron in Wood Central. It is well worth saving and studying and I hope he adds to this thread.
How can I ever get my workbench finished when I read all the interesting posts onthis forum?
Don


This often depends on the condition and the piece of wood being worked.

I was working some alder a few days ago and it looked like terrible tear out. Turned out to be very thin specks of medullary rays.

The simple answer is to go with the rising grain.

Plain direction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Grain rising ///////////////////////////////////

Kind of a crude graphic, hope it works.

There is also the situation with flat sawn having what are called 'cathedrals' on the surface. This is in flat sawn lumber. If you look at the end it will show a bit of a curve in the end grain.

My way to remember how to go with this is if the end is a cup or 'smile' my plane goes with the 'cathedrals.' If the end is down or looks like a 'frown' my plane goes against the 'cathedrals' or mows them down. Go with the smiles mow down the frowns.

Of course there is always some twisting grain in the wood pile. For these the plane is set to a very fine shaving. After the majority of smoothing is done the direction is reversed to remove the tear out. With a sharp blade and a fine setting this usually works for me.

If you haven't already read about setting the chip breaker Google > setting a cap iron <. David Weaver posted an article at Wood central detailing the effects of setting the chip breaker as shown in a video from Japan.

When I started to answer this there were no replies. When finished there were a bunch. One I do not understand:



David, could you shine a little enlightenment on this method?

jtk

[Curt Putnam]

The most useful technique I use that has not been described here is to take an old nylon stocking (or microfiber cloth) and rub it on the board. You'll soon tell which way is which. Obviously does not work with rough sawn but there is more room for error with rough.

[Daniel Rode]

My wife and kids are going to wonder why I have stocking in the shop :)

This is a great tip for stock that's tough to read visually!


The most useful technique I use that has not been described here is to take an old nylon stocking (or microfiber cloth) and rub it on the board. You'll soon tell which way is which. Obviously does not work with rough sawn but there is more room for error with rough.

[glenn bradley]

I have one of these tacked on the wall :o

296105

[Daniel Rode]

I'm need to print this out (larger) and hang it on my wall. I know the cathedral grain can indicate the right direction but I can never remember which way relative to the edge ring pattern.

I have one of these tacked on the wall :o

[Kees Heiden]

This comes from Chris Schwarz: With the bark side up, the cathedrals are "barking". That is, they look like open dog mouths and you plane in the direction of the barking sound.
That's how I remember it. But you can't use this trick too often. Mostly I just plane the board and look in which direction I get the best results. Then using the chipbreaker of course to improve the results in areas where you are still planing against the grain (often quite unavoidable).

[Judson Green]

Having learned to set the chipbraker correctly (thanks David Weaver) I don't really pay much attention any more.

[Winton Applegate]

Most of the stuff I work the grain direction changes both directions over the length of say, a five foot plank. Add to that matching the grain for the most pleasing camouflage of the glue joints often puts the grain opposite to the board next to it. I have pretty much come to rely on my bevel up planes and careful selection of edge geometry (bevel steep enough to eliminate tear out and no steeper) and edge preparation (specifically no roundy bevels or backs but flat facets) to allow me to plane against the grain with flawless results. Sharpen to at least 8000 using a jig for the bevel.

No I am not kidding.

The first photo is bare wood (no finish) just finish planed.
The next two photos is with finish. The grain is not filled. Bubinga.
Same goes for the purple heart work bench. The last three photos. There is no finish on it and never will be. The extreme color difference in the photos of the work bench is due to different light bulbs and different cameras (first photo of the bench was taken with a first generation iPhone and the last two photos with a modern Touch iPod.

PS: the fuzz mostly comes from sanding and wetting. I never sand so I don't have to wet.

[Winton Applegate]

Ha, ha, ha
I love the chip breaker comments. It allows me to slip in the awful comment:

Hmmmmmm
my bevel up does not even HAVE a chip breaker.
So does that make chip breakers unnecessary ?
or
Important but only on flexy bladed planes. Or what ?
:):p:cool:
I know, I know
don't answer that but it is fun to plant seeds in young minds.

[Winton Applegate]

"suck it and see
ha, ha, ha, aaah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, aaah, ha, ha, ha,
ah ha, aaaaa . . .
I hadn't heard that one before. That was funny


try a thin shaving in both directions

Oh now you tell me. ( I went back and finished reading the thread.)
Can some body tell me the best way to get these purple heart splinters out of my lips ? :eek:

:p

[Derek Cohen]

To read grain direction, as others have mentioned, look at the side of the board. The aim is always (where possible) to plane "down hill", that is, with the grain running away from the plane. This holds whether one is planing the face or the edge.

In the example below, the arrows indicate the direction that the grain is running, as well as the direction the plane will run when planing the edge.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Woodworking/grain%20direction/Graindirection_zps64f6fbaf.jpg

To plane the face grain, simply imagine the board edge here as being the face, and vice versa.

The grain at the top edge is straight forward since it runs consistently in one direction. However the grain at the lower edge reverses (as shown by the two arrows). One could turn the plane around here, or use tearout-resisting methods (chip breaker or high cutting angle) and plane though it all.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Derek, just to confuse matters: I would say at the top arrow you are planing uphill, not downhill. When the grain represents the hill, you are walking the plane upwards.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Kees

You are probably correct. I deliberated on calling it up hill and down hill. I get spatially challenged in such situations. But you all know what I meant .. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Good :o

That's my primairy indication of grain direction too. Then comes the direction of the cathedrals. And finally a testshaving with the capiron close, but not superclose yet.

[Dave Cullen]

I have one of these tacked on the wall :o

296105

Thanks... I do too, now.

[george wilson]

"Plane in the direction that gives the best results". That is the best advice in this whole thread!!!:)

[Pat Barry]

Don't rub your cat the wrong direction! Don't spit into the wind. Downhill is easier than uphill.

[Steve Baumgartner]

I have one of these tacked on the wall :o

296105
I have a similar picture pinned up. For the technically minded, the reason it works is that the growth rings of the tree are like cylinders running up the trunk and the "cathedrals" are slanted slices through the cylinders (it took me a while to visualize that :-). To use this you need a clean end-grain cut; it is easy to confuse circular sawmill marks for grain on a rough end cut in wood with indistinct figure!

Steve

[Shawn Pixley]

I wish I were better at reading it with my eyes. I've made enough errors that I now 'read' it with a block plane on the non-show side first, and then plane the opposite way on the show side.

For some reason, I tend to find boards that have switchy grain, which moots the question of grain direction and begs for a sharp blade.

Prashun, Like you, I seem to get wood where the grain reverses. I also test with a block plane first. Still, sharp with a close cap iron is indispensable.

[Mike Holbrook]

What helped me more than anything was taking a class on making windsor chairs. Try working a glued up shield seat blank with drawknife and spokeshave. With all the curves and multiple boards, the grain often changes abruptly while working a given edge. Not seeing one of those transitions can result in major tear out when using a drawknife. I started to see the areas where these transitions would likely occur, even if I could not see or feel an obvious visual or tactile change. Even with a drawknife one can make very small test cuts in those areas to feel out exactly where those abrupt changes occur.

Green woodworking in general is a case study in working with grain. The whole process is geared towards making wood objects with grain running very straight through the entire object.

[george wilson]

It is a good practice to make sure when gluing up boards to make a wide plank,that all the boards plane in the same direction. If you do not do this,of course you'll have trouble planing the whole plank. But also,there will be a different chatoyance(shine) seen between those different boards when a finish is applied.

[Winton Applegate]

;) Let me have some fun with this dire and final statement of "?fact?".
Ignoring the chatoyance for now. Chances are, unless one has a very prize flitch rather than, what most of us work with, a random pile of planks from various trees, one is going to have changes in chatoyance even if one holds their tung just right.;)


It is a good practice to make sure when gluing up boards to make a wide plank,that all the boards plane in the same direction.

Good practice but often a boring, uninspired or down right annoying visual effect may result however. As in "oh look you can see right where the seams are. Looks like a bunch of random boards glue edge to edge".

"Oh but isn't the chatoyance even ?!"


If you do not do this,
of course
you'll have trouble planing the whole plank

If using a flexy bevel down and especially with a non perfected chip breaker and even then good luck and go to it.

Unless of course
you were to switch mid stream to a good basic bevel up plane following Winton's sharpening "ridiculousness " to the letter.

then of course

all would be well, you could lay out the boards for best grain camouflage of the glue joints and inspired playfulness of the imagination stimulating effect of the grain and no tear out would result except from the cross plaining scrub flattening and all that would be progressively cleaned up while planing straight down the panel's length.


But also,there will be a different chatoyance(shine) seen between those different boards when a finish is applied.

But then of course there are those who use the chatoyance as a design element to create checker board patterns etc.

They would either have to resort to Winton's "ridiculousness" or bussssout the belt sander.

What ever that is.

PS: Ok I lied
I didn't ignore the chatoyance.:p

[Shawn Pixley]

Good advice here. Please let me pose a slightly different situation. Yesterday I was edge planing a curly maple board to make its width equal to the others. It was about 1/32" wider (it was a total Neander build, rather than using my tablesaw). The grain reversed itself in the 3' of its length. So, if I was finsh face planing, I would use a #4 with a real sharp blade and a tight set chip breaker and plane in one direction to get a 0.001" to 0.002" shaving. Problem solved.

But yesterday I wanted to plane to size quickly rather than take it down with one thousandth of an inch cuts. So grabbing a jack plane, I took a thicker shaving and suffered the tearout at one end of the board. When I got close to the proper thickness, I switched to a smoother to clean up the tearout at one end where the grain reversed. I could have also backed off the blade and reversed the planing direction at the troublesome end. Is this the way others do this? Is there a better way?

[Kees Heiden]

Did you set the capiron on the jackplane too? As close as possible without it peeking out under the sole? You won't totally prevent tearout, but it helps to keep the damage in check. Thick shavings on difficult wood make it almost impossible to alltogether avoid tearout. On wider boards it helps to traverse, but on a narrow edge that's not possible. Going in from both sides isn't a stupid idea either, but it is more work.

[Pat Barry]

Good advice here. Please let me pose a slightly different situation. Yesterday I was edge planing a curly maple board to make its width equal to the others. It was about 1/32" wider (it was a total Neander build, rather than using my tablesaw). The grain reversed itself in the 3' of its length. So, if I was finsh face planing, I would use a #4 with a real sharp blade and a tight set chip breaker and plane in one direction to get a 0.001" to 0.002" shaving. Problem solved.

But yesterday I wanted to plane to size quickly rather than take it down with one thousandth of an inch cuts. So grabbing a jack plane, I took a thicker shaving and suffered the tearout at one end of the board. When I got close to the proper thickness, I switched to a smoother to clean up the tearout at one end where the grain reversed. I could have also backed off the blade and reversed the planing direction at the troublesome end. Is this the way others do this? Is there a better way?
Yes, I would go with the tablesaw :)

[george wilson]

Winton,why do you choose to ignore the now well proven (revived from old knowledge) use of the chip breaker? If you look at the angles of the bevel,and the angles of the back of the plane iron,comparing both the standard Bailey type plane,and the bevel up types,you will see that in reality there is hardly any difference in the angles at which the cutters enter the wood. That is,unless you grind a very long bevel. But,that might lead to other problems,like chipping. How can you ignore the now well known Japanese videos ? They show and prove the effectiveness of a properly set chip breaker,seen on an extreme closeup of the cutting action,and the tear out resisting action of the close set chip breaker.

As for unwanted chatoyance,it is very obvious on guitars whose spruce tops have different grain angle on each side,though they were book matched. Such is wood cut from a twisted tree trunk. One side shines quite brightly. The other half looks dark. That is a situation where you do not want different chatoyance to show.

Nor do I want it to show in the wide dining table I made recently. I want all the glued up wide boards to look the same.

If you want to take advantage of grain shine for some decorative purpose,that's fine. But,most of the time we want to eliminate boards showing different chatoyance.

Usually,if you search long and deep enough, or gradually learn enough,you will find that there is a good reason why,at least in the old days of craftsmanship,some designs prevailed. Like the standard bevel down Bailey style planes. And why the prevalent style of planes are not the bevel up types. That knowledge seemed to have become lost in the onset of the machine age. Now,it is regained.

It's just like Mother Nature,in the end: Survival of the fittest. These days,it does not seem to hold so true(in craftsmanship) as it once did. Men once widely knew how to use hand tools to earn a living. That included not tearing up grain and taking more time to fix it. They barely earned enough to buy food on the way home. And I can give specific examples of that if needed. You cannot even get a decent chasing hammer handle(or head). You have trouble finding a decent file. And then are come all the new "boutique" tool makers. Some of them revive rarely made old patterns.

If you choose to ignore my advice,that is your privilege. but,please do not poke fun at it. It was well and hard earned.

BTW: Do you refer to tung oil,or holding your tongue just right? :)

[Shawn Pixley]

There is a limit to thickness you can take with a cap iron set really close (at least for me).

[Kees Heiden]

When you want to know everything about shaving thickness and chipbreaker settings compared to high angle blades and tight mouths, you should of course read my article!
http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/cap_iron_study_by_kees_van_der.html

When working difficult wood there is of course a limit to the shaving thickness you can achieve without tearout. And the chipbreaker limits the shaving thickness indeed. When the chipbreaker starts to peek out under the sole, the force to push the plane will increase rapidly. But you have plenty of space usually. At a 0.1 mm setting, you can go to a 0.07 mm cutting depth (0.1 x sin 45). That is about 3 thou, plenty for a smoother setting like that.

Cutting depth is usually quite a bit less then shaving thickness, because the shaving is compressed during planing. In my experience a 3 thou cutting depth easilly yields a 4 thou shaving.

Ok, so far for the geeky stuff :p

[Winton Applegate]

Winton,why do you choose to ignore the now well proven (revived from old knowledge) use of the chip breaker?


I would use a #4 with a real sharp blade and a tight set chip breaker and plane in one direction to get a 0.001" to 0.002" shaving. Problem solved.


grabbing a jack plane, I took a thicker shaving and suffered the tear out at one end of the board. When I got close to the proper thickness, I switched to a smoother to clean up the tear out at one end where the grain reversed. I could have also backed off the blade and reversed the planing direction at the troublesome end. Is this the way others do this?

Is there a better way?
George,
it is like you read my posts and don't need to and Shawn needs to read my posts and doesn't.
If I had taken the BU down that edge I could have taken a heavy cut and gotten almost no tear out, then backed way off on the thickness of cut taken and finish planed it and or even switched blades and finish planed it, much quicker and easier than a BD and been sitting and picking my teeth while all the BD action was still going on.

THAT IS WHY !
As I think I have said before. Don't say "it CAN'T be done" or "you will OF COURSE have trouble with".
Say "I choose to limit myself to these funny BD planes and so I put up with ______" fill in the blank.
There is a an option that CAN do it and is really no TROUBLE.

:) spelling is off limits, you know that. Besides my industrial, extra heavy duty, water cooled spell checker was down for its quarterly complete over haul. I was relying on a team of spelling bee winners but they couldn't keep up and some couldn't stop laughing long enough to tell me what I should type.

so of course there are going to be errors. Spelling bores the absolute badjesus out of me when I am trying to write ideas. I think it was Hemingway who said "That is why there are editors". Thanks for being my editor. I will send you your fee just as soon as the royalties from this start pooring, I mean poring, I mean pouring . . .

. . . what was I talking about ? Oh well . . . it's gone now.

Speaking of tong oyl check out this photo taken today of the oils from the other thread. The tung hasn't frosted over though it has set for like two weeks in open warm air. It is 100 % and a couple three years ago would have frosted over and began to solidify by now EVEN THE THICK DROP not just the smear. How is this possible ? I thought the problem was keeping this goop from solidifying in the jar. The stand oil has thickened but not cross linking nearly as fast as I have seen it do in similar tests I have performed with it.

PPS: I keep the tung oil in jars that large marbles are added to to keep them full to the lid so very little air is in there.
PS: the camellia and the WD-40 haven't "evaporated" yet either but I have faith that they will . . . eventually . . . I was assured that they would/will/have already done so in the future.

What do you make of that ?
And since I have you on the line, what do you say about the himephrodite dividers and the last monkey wrench I posted.

yah I couldn't spell himephrodite and am too lazy to look it up.

I would have like to have heard back from you there but short of send you a PM I finally gave up asking.

[george wilson]

I had a nice LN bevel up plane at work,and it worked fine. Been too parsimonious to spend the bucks to but one for home. I know that LV thinks chip breakers are too difficult to set correctly. They have a point,but like everything else,it takes some skill and finesse. Perhaps that is why they might prefer to avoid it for the average hobby woodworker. Never the less,the properly set chip breaker works. I was not aware of this until David W. brought it to light. I won't be too stubborn to refuse new knowledge. Besides,that Japanese video does prove it very convincingly.

Since many musical instruments are made of curly maple,I just used to plane straight across the grain,and scrape smooth.

Winton,I have enjoyed your posts,and will keep on reading them.

P.S.: I think I replied that your wrench is not a true monkey wrench. I don't have one myself,though they are apparently good wrenches.when I was new at the museum,the ordering clerk pulled out a monkey wrench and asked me what it was. I replied correctly,thinking that the old man needed to find something better to try being tricky at!!:) There's one on Leach's tool list,but it's too ugly to contemplate buying. I will struggle on with my ever loosening Crescent wrench,when I'm too lazy to locate a proper open end wrench. I had an 18th. C. repro wrench at work,for taking the fire engine apart while in costume. It had a captured steel wedge to whack tight when it was adjusted. That was the greatest wrench I ever had. It never budged at all,once the wedge was given a whack. I wish I still had it. But,my need for wrenches is confined to lathes and milling machines,so it would perhaps been a bit bulky.

As for the hemaphrodite calipers,I can't recall them right off. I think they were o.k.. Old time machinists called them "morphies". But,as I mentioned,the very greatest part of them just filed one leg of regular dividers a bit short and they did fine double duty. Many years ago,when I was a kid,finding those filed short irritated me a bit. Then I learned why they were so filed.

[David Weaver]

There is a limit to thickness you can take with a cap iron set really close (at least for me).

Shawn, a tweener plane is nice to have and makes fast work of thicknessing. The thickest shavings I take from my smoother are about 5 thousandths, and from a try plane almost twice that, though it's nicer to work a shaving a bit thinner than a hundredth - it's just something you can do if you feel the desire. (speaking in soft maple / cherry hardness type woods).

And you can take those heavy shavings with the shaving just being worked a little by the cap iron (so that it straightens some), so you have protection against catastrophic tearout, though you get a little bit at the higher thicknesses. The key to the whole thing is that the tearout that occurs with those slightly farther settings with a thick shaving is very minimal and you just set your smoother for a thin shaving and run it off without changing thickness much.

What I'm getting at is that the setting that you're looking for here is probably the most useful task for the cap iron, as you can smooth any way you want, but taking a shaving between 5 thousandths and a hundredth and getting rid of damage or ridges from a very coarse plane is very useful for thicknessing. It is the part of the equation that allows quick dimensioning by hand, working to your marking line with shavings 5 thousandths to a hundredth thick instead of a thousandth or two.

So my suggestion would be with another smoother, or a 5 or really any other plane with a good cap iron, experiment to find a setting where a five thousandth shaving is just straightening with the cap iron. I think you'll find you can remove material fast like that without much strain, leave a very good surface that has only tiny tearout that's easily taken off by two or three smoother passes, and generally stay completely out of trouble.

You may also be able to (in most woods) use that five thou setting on a smoother and back off for final smoothing without changing the setting since 1 thousandth type shavings often don't have enough strength to lift anything from the surface of the wood.

[Prashun Patel]

Thanks to the pro's on this thread; I've really enjoyed this lively yet professional debate.

[Doug Hobkirk]

Dave,

....

I like to preserve planing directions to the end of the job.

David Charlesworth

Am i correct in thinking:

grain direction varies, and the "best" direction is often somewhat arbitrary
but that once you've chosen a direction, you continue in that direction


Once you've planed the board and moved on to other boards, some assembly, etc., do you often need to plane that board again? And if so, do you mark the direction you had chosen originally?

[Daniel Rode]

There are many here more knowledgeable than I but here's my take.

The best grain direction is not arbitrary so much as often changes. One must read the direction and the make decision about how to plane it. Sometimes, I can work in a single direction and get acceptable results despite the grain switching, some times it's better to plane different parts in different directions, sometimes no planing direction seems to work, so I reach for a scraper or sandpaper. Occasionally, I reach for a different piece of wood.

This is the nature of working with wood, especially when using hand tools. I take what the wood gives me and respond as best I can.


Am i correct in thinking:

grain direction varies, and the "best" direction is often somewhat arbitrary
but that once you've chosen a direction, you continue in that direction


Once you've planed the board and moved on to other boards, some assembly, etc., do you often need to plane that board again? And if so, do you mark the direction you had chosen originally?

[david charlesworth]

Yes, I am careful to preserve the planing direction of Face Side and Face edge.

You may plane again for a number of reasons.

1. Joining planks.
2. Flushing joints such as door frames. Leg to rail joints etc.
3. Perhaps the most important, when you want to clean a panel or component before glue up or final finishing.
4. Fitting doors and drawers. I'm sure there are many more!

David Charlesworth

[Shawn Pixley]

George,
it is like you read my posts and don't need to and Shawn needs to read my posts and doesn't.


Winton, I wasn't asking how to do it, only surveying how others might do it. I got a square, straight edge with no tearout in a reasonable amount of time. I was only interested in how others did it. If you are suggesting that I need to do it your way, well, thanks for playing. I really don't need you to tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing. It is the height of arrogance to think that your way is the only way.

[Winton Applegate]

George,
Oh yah . . I went way back to that thread about the tiny dividers and you did answer about the wrench. Thanks. Oh well.
Here are the 'morphies I spoke of. I don't use them much. I find they move out of adjustment on me too easily. The other day I really cranked on that pivot screw and that helped a little.
so anyway here is the photo cropped to just show the dividers and no punches or wrench.

Is this a morphy ? Or is it a morphy wannabe ?

[Winton Applegate]

Shawn,


Height of arrogance.
Well at least I have reached the pinnacle at something.

Sorry I misunderstood. To me I thought you sounded pretty disappointed in the method you used :


wanted to plane to size quickly rather than take it down with one thousandth of an inch cuts

There is a limit to thickness you can take with a cap iron set really close
grabbing a jack plane, I took a thicker shaving and suffered the tearout
may have had to plane from two directions rather than the easier one direction


and asked :


Is there a better way?

All I meant was that I had already gone on and on about A better way. That I was surprised you ignored it.
and yes for me it is THEE better way.

I now realize I should have realized then that I didn’t realize :D that you were wanting a better way of using the bevel down chip breaker planes ONLY and not some nontraditional frankenplane, freekassoris . . . i.e., my bevel up.

I really should just realize once and for all that there is such and interest in the bevel down RENAISSANCE that I am wasting my time offering my findings.

It’s a Pity in my opinion.
BU is more rigid, faster / easier, fewer parts, more versatile, often less expensive, is more quickly adjusted both throat and blade.
A fine, . . .I think, . . . BETTER, . . . solution must die because of . . .

well I will stop there.

[george wilson]

Yes,that is a correct morphie,Winton.

Don't be concerned about people not following your advice. It happens to everyone here,including me. I an sure I influence a few. There have been several here who apparently have switched to ceramic stones. That's just one issue. But,some good progress does happen,often to the silent masses who say nothing.

But,if you are going to bury your advice giving metamorically (sp?) speaking,I will send you a bouquet of make believe wooden flowers.:)

[Sean Hughto]

Look at all these calcium carbonate spheres raining on the sus! It is annoying to watch them crush them with their little cloven feets! ;)

[Kees Heiden]

Easier? Probably. Better? Hmmm, not so sure about that.

When you think about it. Why did the entire PROFESSIONAL woodworking community convert to double iron planes? And why did the single iron plane become popular again when the professionals were all dead and the AMATEURS took over the market?

[Winton Applegate]

When you think about it. Why did the entire PROFESSIONAL woodworking community convert to double iron planes? And why did the single iron plane become popular again when the professionals were all dead and the AMATEURS took over the market?

I would say I don't know, but you would say go read your literature and I would say but there is not a single issue I have with my planes. I stopped looking for solutions to my issues with the bevel down planes, which I still have and use, when I found solutions for all the issues.

Now . . . if I really wanted a plane with a blade that flexed up and down like a diving board while I was planing . . . I can not imagine why I would want that but if I did I would buss out a bevel down.

If I wanted kind of a quaint old timey machine to fool around with that provided a challenge to make work well, even if it worked nearly as well as my bevel up. Better ? How ? Can't get better than the results I am getting.
. . .if I wanted that quaint old timey machine experience then I would buss out a bevel down. And I do from time to time for that quaint old timey machine fun.

If I wanted a whole collection of planes with various tunings for specific applications of planing thickness and wood I would have a wall full of bevel downs. Ha, ha with all kinds of cute little labels on them.

If I liked exercising my fingers spinning and spinning that adjusting wheel back and forth spin, spin, spin for very little effect and sloppy and vague feel at that . . . I would buss out a bevel down.

I could keep going on

and I think I will
one more
my favorite

And if I really liked Easter egg hunting, which I don't, I do enough of that at work,
If I really like Easter egg hunting I would mess with chip breakers so I could drop the little screw with only two full threads on it in the shavings under the work bench some where.
But I don't, so I don't.

As for what most people did then or now. I find what most people do a baffling puzzle and am thankful to the day I die that I don't need all that silliness. For example there seems to be more young people smoking cigarettes than ten years ago.

So I should take it up ?
Ha, ha, ha,

There isn't one thing that a BD does, that I can see, that is an advantage other than perhaps sharpening a little quicker. The back doesn't have to be flat , though the bevel facet flatness is more critical Oh wait it just bends down and gives a little clearance. Up and down up and down up and down.

Ha, ha, ha

[Winton Applegate]

Don't be concerned about people not following your advice

George,
Get with it man.
The entire woodworking community has taken up a new, old, new way.
It is way better.
The new spelling for advice is "advise".

Yep I should start looking at the fine details.

Ha, ha, do you remember when everybody was saying "foylage" and meant foliage ? Even TV presenters that should know better.
I didn't jump on that wagon either even though there was a standing room only party going on it every night.

[Kees Heiden]

Hmmm, you don't really answer the two questions, you just say why you yourself don't like BD's, which is a different question.

But I still can adress the issues you bring up.

- The floppy blade is a Stanley issue, and not half as bad as you think. Pull the frog back, so the iron is fully supported and it's a lot better allready. Or install a thicker blade if you really want. And it certainly isn't an issue for woodies or infills with their thick blades, so it isn't about BD's but about Bailey's.

- The time machine feeling? Did you know that the bevel up design is older then the double iron plane? The double iron plane comes in the second half of the 18th century. The iron, bevel up mitre plane is allready in a German dictionary in 1713, and the writer doesn't present it as a new invention at all.

- Too many planes? Huh? Didn't you know that the double iron plane is the easiest adjustable plane available? One screwdriver and you can adjust the plane between thick and thin shavings, more or less tearout reduction. A bevel up needs extra blades or a grinder to change its ability to reduce tearout. Sorry I don't understand your point.

- The backlash in the adjuster, again a Stanley "feature". Again not half as bad as you make it, but i believe it can be iritating. Not an issue with many other bevel down planes though.

- The dropped capiron screw. There you really have a point. I haven't really lost any yet, but I have searched from time to time. A little bit of aptitude helps in this department though.

Well, I understand that you are happy with your bevel up planes. That's good, I like happy people. Just a pitty you couldn't help to answer these two questions. Why on earth did the professional woodworking community convert to the double iron plane back in the 18th/19th century? There must have been some very good reasons. And why are these reasons not valid anymore in todays woodworking circles?

[Winton Applegate]

Kees,
:cool: I will get back to reading your truly sage and appreciated response but first call ahead to your switchman and have him throw the one that gets you on my track for bit . . .


Hmmm, you don't really answer the two questions, you just say why you yourself don't like BD's, which is a different question.

1. Why did the entire PROFESSIONAL woodworking community convert to double iron planes?

Answer :
I don't know

2. And why did the single iron plane become popular again when the professionals were all dead and the AMATEURS took over the market?

Answer :
for that quaint old timey machine funI'm stretching the second one a bit but go with it.

PS: until this second I thought you meant a bevel down single iron. Ohhhh you mean a bevel up as a single iron. Thank you for including my devil franken plane in the general mish mash. Well that's a start. I feel like I have , at that moment, won about all I can possibly win here today and am metaphorically speaking lying back in my posting couch smoking an imaginary cigar.

Life is good
:)

[Kees Heiden]

Oh yes sorry that was confusing. I regard bevel up planes and bevel down single iron planes as more or less the same. But they aren't totally the same of course. They just share the single iron feature with all that goes along with that feature.

[Winton Applegate]

Pull the frog back, so the iron is fully supported and it's a lot better already Or install a thicker blade if you really want. And it certainly isn't an issue for woodies or infills with their thick blades, so it isn't about BD's but about Bailey's.

So one has to disassemble the plane with a screw driver down inside and correct an inherent flaw in the design ( in the process destroying the decent throat opening) rather than just turn a knurled finger screw or two and use the plane as intended. BU with an adjustable throat and close edge support to start with.

Got it ! You sure put that one to bed. (you thought I didn’t know that and didn’t try it. I did).


Or install a thicker blade
So the people who designed the Bailey/Stanleys what have you didn’t really test the prototypes, didn’t actually USE the planes they were hawking and selling like flap jacks and it is up to me to correct their laziness and lack of attention to detail. Is that what you are saying here today ? Flap jacks, ha, ha, ha that's a good one ! I love the way my subcondous works, (now if the bastard) (my subconscious) could just learn to spell ((and type)) he and I could get along), keeps me entertained. Ha, ha get it ? Flapping Jack planes. I just saw that while proof reading to see if anything here that I wrote makes the least sense.

if you really want.

I don’t want.
I think we can eliminate that whole phylum from viable alternatives . . . to the perfectly functional and flawless BU Varitas especially.

OK go on . . . I’m starting to get warmed up a little here . . . had my coffee and a little fruit . . . what you have to watch out for is when I start firing down all that evil carbohydrate in the form of pastry . . . at that point my brain starts to come on and the coffee ignites it and . . . well . . . I tend to get a little enthusiastic lets say.


And it certainly isn't an issue for woodies or infills with their thick blades, so it isn't about BD's but about Bailey's.

So what you are saying there is that there is a blade with an even longer main bevel, sticking out from the bed like a sore thumb, and some how because the blade is thicker up above that that creates some invisible SUPORT that comes way out there, down and around to the bottom of the edge and supports it from bellow the bevel like on a BU ? Even though the sharpening angle is the same and the effective blade displacement or cross section, if you will. at that point is the same. It is like saying we put a spacer behind the blade or made the frog thicker so the blade is more rigid. To demonstrate I am not being a complete jerk I think you mean the thinner blade flexes away from the frog in the middle near the screw. What I am talking about is just the bit of the underside of the blade at the lowest part of the bed.

Some how THAT was something I missed SEEING but you are very adamant so I need to go look for that again. Does that mean that if my butt gets bigger my fingers will be stronger. Huh . . . interesting physics . . . must be a whole new field of theory. A field theory. Fields are often invisible to the human eye.

Hummmmm
you have given me something to think about tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, OK I’m done.
That was fun.


Didn't you know that the double iron plane is the easiest adjustable plane available?

No I didn’t know that.


One screwdriver and you can adjust the plane between thick and thin shavings,
No screw driver required on BU


more or less tearout reduction.
why aaaaaaahhhh would one want MORE tear out ?


A bevel up needs extra blades

Yeeeeessssss I have stacks of them so I don’t have to sharpen all the damb time and and can just work rather than feel like I have to have one blade and try to keep it going in some half fast fashion at the work bench.


or a grinder
I use a shallow angle main bevel with a microscopic secondary that is easily removed with a 120 Shapton.

to change its ability to reduce tearout. Sorry I don't understand your point.

Blades are super easy to store and label. just a magic marker number.


- The backlash in the adjuster, again a Stanley "feature". Again not half as bad as you make it, but i believe it can be iritating.

I think you mentioned that you are a machinist, or were.
I am a metal head to. I spend my time trying to get most all that slop out of a new plane. A waste of time by the way. Drives me crazy after discovering precise dialing think anti backlash, machines threads.

Nasty things, Stanley style adjusters (the LN planes have less but still) revultin’ to touch


Not an issue with many other bevel down planes though.
So now I (meaning the newbie; not me) need to go test drive a stable full of BDs to find a horse without a loose joints problem.
That was one of the advantages to BDs right ?
I got a little lost there.

I can be confident that when I order a BU from, well, any of the manufactures i have ever bought one from that the adjuster will be pleasing and precise even to a perfectionist/ _______er (edited for sensitive ears) like me.


The dropped capiron screw . . . A little bit of aptitude helps in this department though.

Yah, aptitude with a center punch on the end of the screw to expand it so it sticks part way out like a well fit drawer just before one pulls it free of the cabinet.

Moving on . . .


Well, I understand that you are happy with your bevel up planes

Ecstatic. No kidding. That is why I put so much time into looking like such a jerk here. Or maybe I just like to argue.
I do learn stuff from all this though so keep at it.
Please and thank you.
Winton

[David Weaver]

Fascination with adjusters on planes suggests a lack of progress in actual planing. At one time, I thought backlash was an enormous problem, and now I can't seem to find a plane where it is. The only problem I've encountered with adjusters is planes where the adjuster direction is reversed from the norm. That's a problem.

In general, it seems that machinists and mechanical engineers seem to have a problem leveling with themselves about what's really material in planing woods.

George is an exception, though I'd imagine he started with wood and went to machining later.

One of my woodworking buddies is a mechanical engineer, and he has a lot of trouble separating fascination with the tool from woodworking. He is appalled by a lot of things that don't matter at all, and thus doesn't use his hand tools very often.

A craftsman will have no time for that kind of stuff, and it's good for us to try to get to the point that we're craftsmen.

[george wilson]

Yes David,I started with woodworking seriously in 1954. I couldn't afford tools anyway,especially not metal working lathes and milling machines. Still can't really afford to buy GOOD ones(lucky I have the Hardinge HLVH,my Deckel fp1,and my Harrison horizontal mill. They were luckily found for reasonable prices). My friend Chris Vesper,who just left here for the WIA show,has nicer machines than I do. I beat him on nice little stuff like knurls,a mass of vintage files,special instruments of mensuration,and other details that make a shop complete.

There is backlash on all machines to some degree. The CNC machines with ball screw leadscrews come the closest to eliminating it,but even they can have a little bit,which operators compensate for when they write programs for them.

Your bevel up planes are no better,Winton. They are just NEWER. And made to tighter manufacturing tolerances than the old stuff,probably. But,brass adjusting nuts WILL wear eventually,both on their internal threads,and on their circumferences,where they run in the little slots in the steel blades-that is a recipe for wear on the part of the brass.

Backlash is found on all the manual lathes,as I said. It is easily allowed for by a competent machinist. You note where your dial is,run the dial backwards if you need to,and run the dial back to where it was. No biggie. Planes are the same. They require a certain degree of skill to use. I got it by spending my whole life working with them.

Me,I really like using a little brass hammer on a basic wooden plane. I got quite into it while using them daily in the museum. I still use them at home. I like my metal planes too. But I DO have the skill and good mechanical sense to know how to allow for a bit of backlash.

Winton,your argument has already become past the point of logic. You do ignore the basic rule of survival of the fittest. And those that survived the most were the standard BD planes. And no amount of cuteness on your part can change that. Sorry,thet's just the truth of the matter.

Warren used a standard Stanley plane to win the planing competition,didn't he? That is proof of their functionality in itself. That,and the fact that Warren KNOWS how to use and adjust his plane. End of story.

And,I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about with your ADVISE bit. I use the words advise and advice correctly. And the spell check will not help anyone,because,used right or wrong,if the words are spelled correctly,the checker will let them stand. So will the checker let stand incorrectly used YOUR (when it should have been YOU'RE),THERE,when it should have been THEIR,(or even they're), STEAL instead of STEEL(In a machinist's forum!!!!!), and all the other grade school level foolishness that goes on out there. I'm not saying you use those words wrong,just that there's plenty of it. I might get attacked for snobbishness. But the correct use of our language is important,and not to be taken lightly. I am not in the least a member of the elite crowd. I was a troop in the museum,not regarded as a high class curator or a suit. But,in 200 years,they will be making intellectual studies of workers like me,while looking down on their contemporary craftsmen,just like they do now. I can guarantee that.

I think it is not out of line to suggest that someone who writes as if he wants to be taken as an intellectual,as David Barnett certainly is,(A master of the language!),he should have learned to prove he has the credentials for it. And,that includes spelling correctly.

I did hardly any writing for many years,though,and it is sometimes difficult to recall spelling and punctuation now that I do communicate by writing again.

I know a lot of $5.00 words myself,but I don't try to put on a show and use a lot of them. I speak plainly,not advertising my indefatigable thesaurus to get a point across. It soon becomes as difficult to understand as pohompolugojasmasm(Under water bubbling and boiling sounds-you won't find it in Google.It's part of classical Greek literature.). But,I did enjoy and pay attention in school. Even taught myself for 6 years,math for one of them (horrors! I needed a job).

[Winton Applegate]

Holly Hand Planes Batman it's

The Wild Weaver

I think I hear my mother calling . . . I gotta go.


machinists and mechanical engineers seem to have a problem leveling with themselves about what's really material in planing woods.


nice play on words and images :


mechanical engineers . . . have a hard time leveling
what's really material in plaining wood.

You know capes like tha (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68ndaZSKa8#aid=P8EGpranSag)t were in but they caused the demise of so many super heroes they are passé now daaauuuuuhhhling.

[george wilson]

Yeah,well the WILD WEAVER has made some very nice planes. I have not seen a lot of his work,but I have seen them. His designs are tasteful and his work is very well executed. His language is lucid and plain. And it is correctly executed.(And I do know it is incorrect to begin a sentence with AND).

[Pat Barry]

Fascination with adjusters on planes suggests a lack of progress in actual planing. At one time, I thought backlash was an enormous problem, and now I can't seem to find a plane where it is. The only problem I've encountered with adjusters is planes where the adjuster direction is reversed from the norm. That's a problem.

In general, it seems that machinists and mechanical engineers seem to have a problem leveling with themselves about what's really material in planing woods.

George is an exception, though I'd imagine he started with wood and went to machining later.

One of my woodworking buddies is a mechanical engineer, and he has a lot of trouble separating fascination with the tool from woodworking. He is appalled by a lot of things that don't matter at all, and thus doesn't use his hand tools very often.

A craftsman will have no time for that kind of stuff, and it's good for us to try to get to the point that we're craftsmen.
I think your points regarding the classification of engineers are ludicrous. Also, adjusting the Bailey plane depth is a pain in the rear. The sloppiness of the adjuster drives me nuts. I don't want to develop craftsmanship with inferior tools - you can if you wish. I suspect the root of this adjuster problem with the beloved Bailey planes is due to lack of quality in the design and materials because those things would have priced them out of the market. Why is it wrong to want a tool to work without all the fuss? Today's engineers don't get paid for sloppiness of design. They are expected to deliver high quality at low cost - not an easy task in today's ultra competitive world. Anyway, that's my experience as an engineer. I do use the Bailey style planes most of the time and they do get the job done of course. They have a certain charm due to their age and history but I don't think, if they were selling them new today, they would actually have many takers. We all love them because we can find them so inexpensively. Lets face it, we are all tightwads and wannabe craftsman.

[Winton Applegate]

little brass hammer
I would ACTUALLY rather discuss little brass hammers but David W. refuses to answer my queries about those.
so
alas
I am reduced to discuss how terrible BU planes are for your health, or was it vision, mental out look that was it ! ! !

right ?

Sorry I have such a pore, pour, . . . dang it . . . poor memory these days for facts and details. My memory is like the bird wing butterfly, it flits prettily here and there, but alas is now almost completely extinct.

What was it we were discussing ?

Foolishness !
I have to have the skill and good mechanical sense to know how to allow for a bit of foolishness.

OK I’m with you now.


ADVISE
I’m not talking about you or your posts.
You missed that ?
Keep watching the posts.

OK you convinced me. Bevel down planes are best because it is logical that they are the best.
Because. . .
well because uhmmmmm
oh yah
Because there are a lot of them.
So the best car to have is a pinto, beetle or what was that other awful thing there were so many of . . . . ?
I learned to drive in the nasty thing for Bob's sake . . . in the driver's ed classes in the practice lot . . . kept wiggling all around on it's coil springs just rolling around the lot . . .
oh well . . . did I mention my memory isn't very good ?
It is like a . . .
like a . . .
the thing you drain rice through for heaven sakes . . .
no matter.

Won the planing competition with a Stanley.
Wow in spite of a handy cap like that. Show off.
Apparently a true feat of planing prowess would have been to win it with a BU.

OK really I got to stop. I was already afraid the thread was stopped by the moderator.
I'm going to do chores.
Be nice.
It's only woodworking.
Only . . . Hah ! ! ! what am I saying.

[george wilson]

Oh! Do keep on being stubborn,Winton. But,it is not conducive to improving your knowledge. I was not aware of how to correctly set a chip breaker. Nor was I enamored of my few,old Stanley planes. I will not dismiss scientifically proven information as shown in the Japanese video. It would just be foolish to do so.

I will repeat that some of the sloppiness in Baileys MIGHT be due to many years of use. And they are being made better today,but at high cost,of course. I'll still warn all that brass is a soft metal,and it will wear eventually,even on fancy new stuff. Or,are the adjustment screws made of stainless steel? I had an LN BU,and I think it had brass. Haven't had an LV BU.

Winton,you did preface your "advise" paragraph with GEORGE, to point out how everyone is using it wrong. How am I mistaken about you addressing that to me?

If I got that wrong,I might DANE to suggest,with extreme diffidence,that your posts are a bit convoluted. They do become hard to follow.

How can adjusting Stanley planes be much more difficult and fussy than constantly changing type fonts?????

[David Weaver]

I think your points regarding the classification of engineers are ludicrous. Also, adjusting the Bailey plane depth is a pain in the rear. The sloppiness of the adjuster drives me nuts. I don't want to develop craftsmanship with inferior tools - you can if you wish. I suspect the root of this adjuster problem with the beloved Bailey planes is due to lack of quality in the design and materials because those things would have priced them out of the market. Why is it wrong to want a tool to work without all the fuss? Today's engineers don't get paid for sloppiness of design. They are expected to deliver high quality at low cost - not an easy task in today's ultra competitive world. Anyway, that's my experience as an engineer. I do use the Bailey style planes most of the time and they do get the job done of course. They have a certain charm due to their age and history but I don't think, if they were selling them new today, they would actually have many takers. We all love them because we can find them so inexpensively. Lets face it, we are all tightwads and wannabe craftsman.

The fact that you think that the stanley adjuster is hindering you in some way that actually has to do with woodworking tells us what we need to know (keep in mind a very long stretch of stanley plane manufacture targeted at professional woodworkers paralleled norris type adjusters, they could've used something of the sort if they thought it was actually worth it, or rather if their customers thought it was actually worth it).

If bailey planes didn't sell well these days at a fraction of the cost of premium planes (figure they'd probably be half as much for something the quality level of a vintage bailey pattern plane when they did decent machining and used rosewood), then it would be because the buyers are beginners. That's not something we should strive to base our expectations on.

i do categorize engineers (it is a generalization, meaning there are exceptions) as I did because I have seen many who are fascinated by gadgetry on tools or precision that literally doesn't matter for hand tool woodworking. Or like my friend, in the end they decide that hands and eyes and brain aren't capable and if you can't make something precise and jigged, then you have to get a tool that completely removes the individual. He uses the exact same line that you just used, that tools that did fine work for decades or centuries are inferior and difficult to work with. He doesn't have a clue (his dad, a professional, literally wore out a few stanley planes) and believes that there isn't enough time left in his life (he's got decades of life left) to learn to work by hand with anything but the most precise tools available. He makes decent looking stuff with super tight joints and is fascinated by wood worked to the thousandths. He couldn't choose or cut a moulding or an appealing curve that didn't come by bending a flexible stick. He got me into woodworking and is a good guy all around, but we diverged once I started to use my imagination.

[Jim Koepke]

Fascination with adjusters on planes suggests a lack of progress in actual planing. At one time, I thought backlash was an enormous problem, and now I can't seem to find a plane where it is. The only problem I've encountered with adjusters is planes where the adjuster direction is reversed from the norm. That's a problem.

Backlash, slop, play et al. has never caused me a problem. It is just something to learn to live with in life. Must have been the training I got with my old 1957 VW van that liked to wander.

A few of my planes are type 6 or earlier. The adjuster is reversed from all the later planes. It just keeps me on my toes to remember which plane is in use.


And,I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about with your ADVISE bit. I use the words advise and advice correctly. And the spell check will not help anyone,because,used right or wrong,if the words are spelled correctly,the checker will let them stand. So will the checker let stand incorrectly used YOUR (when it should have been YOU'RE),THERE,when it should have been THEIR,(or even they're), STEAL instead of STEEL(In a machinist's forum!!!!!), and all the other grade school level foolishness that goes on out there.

I know it is wrong, but I can not help giggling and having my imagination run wild when someone mentions acquiring a new vice.

I am still having too much pleasure with all my old vices. :eek::D

jtk

[Pat Barry]

The fact that you think that the stanley adjuster is hindering you in some way that actually has to do with woodworking tells us what we need to know (keep in mind a very long stretch of stanley plane manufacture targeted at professional woodworkers paralleled norris type adjusters, they could've used something of the sort if they thought it was actually worth it, or rather if their customers thought it was actually worth it).

If bailey planes didn't sell well these days at a fraction of the cost of premium planes (figure they'd probably be half as much for something the quality level of a vintage bailey pattern plane when they did decent machining and used rosewood), then it would be because the buyers are beginners. That's not something we should strive to base our expectations on.

i do categorize engineers (it is a generalization, meaning there are exceptions) as I did because I have seen many who are fascinated by gadgetry on tools or precision that literally doesn't matter for hand tool woodworking. Or like my friend, in the end they decide that hands and eyes and brain aren't capable and if you can't make something precise and jigged, then you have to get a tool that completely removes the individual. He uses the exact same line that you just used, that tools that did fine work for decades or centuries are inferior and difficult to work with. He doesn't have a clue (his dad, a professional, literally wore out a few stanley planes) and believes that there isn't enough time left in his life (he's got decades of life left) to learn to work by hand with anything but the most precise tools available. He makes decent looking stuff with super tight joints and is fascinated by wood worked to the thousandths. He couldn't choose or cut a moulding or an appealing curve that didn't come by bending a flexible stick. He got me into woodworking and is a good guy all around, but we diverged once I started to use my imagination.
Not hindering David. Just annoying and quirky. I can see the point others have made that this adjustment is something that modern tools have overcome. I recall previous discussions on this and there are those here who just accept the sloppiness and work on. I just find it to be annoying.
With regard to your comments about engineers, I think the engineers here will be fascinated by your categorization. At the same time they will wonder what exactly fascinates you about sloppiness, finicky setups, 'fetteling' for example. I read that as you trying to make do with a tool that really isn't designed properly. Sure, your 'craftsmanship' and 'imagination' may overcome the lousy design, and you can fettel, er improve, the tool as much as you want. Lets face it, you do it out of necessity. Necessity to make the subpar tool work as you need it and necessity to continually defend your opinions of it. People today don't really find that acceptable.

[David Weaver]

Beginners don't find that acceptable, a non-beginner will find no material difference. Remember I had the premium planes (well, I still have some, just not bench planes), at one point that's just about all I had. I favor a stanley bailey over anything LN or LV makes for actual woodworking. Maybe it's because I dimension a lot of wood from rough. It's not making excuses for planes, it's using them, and not just fiddling with an adjuster to try to get really thin smoother shavings.

Remember, norris was making two different styles of adjusters while stanley was making planes and selling a lot more planes than norris (there are probably more problematic norris adjusters than stanley adjusters).

As far as fettling goes, I didn't "fettle" the smoothers I have for very long. No more than a half hour each. I spent about an hour total on the millers falls jointer I have, including flattening it.

I remember what I preferred as a beginner. I know what I prefer now after a lot of dimensioning. They aren't the same thing. I remember being fascinated with the fine adjustment on the premium planes, though the lateral adjustment left me a bit cold. The LN adjustments are nice (the lateral adjustment is better and the adjuster wheel operates nicely), but they have an inferior cap iron design (that on some planes can't even be used properly), a thicker iron (which again, may benefit a beginner, but I don't favor it), weight that's not needed over a bailey pattern....I just prefer the stanleys. Sure, they aren't machined as closely, but they weren't selling to beginners who think that all plane work happens with one thousandth shavings. If they were selling to people who weren't proficient with using planes, maybe they would've used malleable cast (they used it for some school-bound items) and ground things more tightly and used set screws, etc, but they made a plane that was needed to do good (or great) work and left it at that.

[george wilson]

Winton, you are comparing apples to oranges. There really is a difference between a cheap car and a plane that was made and used by just about all the professional woodworkers. There were Craftsman,Dunlap and other cheaper knock offs for the amateurs,just as there are cheaper cars for the less monetarily endowed(or perhaps more parsimonious) customers. That is what they used. Maybe they drove to work in a cheap car,but those planes were by far the predominate ones that they worked with.

Stanley did make a BU plane. After all,ALL LN does is copy old Stanley designs,making them better,some think not,but they are still copies. If the Stanley BU plane was such a superior design,WHY did it not become their most popular model,instead of an expensive collector's item due to their comparative rarity.

Who made MY favorite planes? Why,ME,of course!!:) Though I must confess I love my LN miter plane,which IS a BU design. I think the boxy body is cool. A left over bit of design from 18th. C. metal miter planes,sans dovetailing. STILL a Stanley copy,though. They(LN) could have left off with trying to "streamline" the hot dog handle(I'll make my own,thank you!).

If you like your BU planes,and want to defend them,and ignore the facts about chip breaker use that have recently come back to light,I suggest you continue to do so. It might be for everyone's best interest that you drop the argument without a Parthian shot. No one here is convincing anyone else to change their opinion. I do not intend to be goaded into participating in any more locked threads. No one comes out of those happy.

By the way,Pat,I am not among the wannabe craftsman. I'm a been there(to many times around the block),done that and too worn out to do it too many more times craftsman!!!:)

[David Weaver]

Stanley did make a BU plane. After all,ALL LN does is copy old Stanley designs,making them better,but they are still copies. If the Stanley BU plane was such a superior design,WHY did it not become their most popular model,instead of an expensive collector's item due to their comparative rarity.



The only thing wrong with the stanley 62 that I can think of is the fact that the casting is weak at the mouth, but I don't know if it took abuse to get it to crack. If there was a significant demand for the plane, stanley could've made it with malleable cast (there was overlap in the 62 and the 80M scraper), but they chose not to.

They did, however, sell gobs of low angle and standard angle bevel up block planes.

[george wilson]

Probably they sold gobs of BU low angle block planes because they are too small,and it would have been an extra expense to fit them with chip breakers.:)

[David Weaver]

haha...:)

I'd assume that a lot of those block planes went to carpenters.

[Kees Heiden]

Ha, I've been sleeping very well, and look what I find this morning!

I'd like to pick one item from your story Winton. The rest has all ready been dealt with pretty exhaustively I see.

You think that the very tip of the blade is vibrating when cutting wood? I know that the Bailey blades can flex a bit when pressed really hard, which leaves chatter marks in the wood. This can be dealt with in various ways up to the point that it is hardly a problem anymore. In Australia I can see how a Bailey might not be your plane of choice, but I have no experience in that teritory.

But the bevel itself flapping in the breeze? A very short triangular piece of hardened toolsteel, bending back and forth? That's very hard to believe. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Does it leave any marks on the wood surface?

To counter this idea of the floppy bevel, I'd like to present the case of the classical infill plane. These are widely regarded as the ultimate in solid, chatterproof delivery of the edge to the wood. And they are bevel down with a thick blade, thus long bevels!

And if the force on the edge is really enough to stretch out the steel on the face of the blade and compress the steel on the clearance side, then the pretension of the chipbreaker just behind the edge should provide more support then the thin sole of the bevel down blade which is a lot further away.

BTW, I am not a mechanic, it's much worse, I am an electrical engineer.

[David Weaver]

Kees, when I made the comment about engineers, of course I know you're an engineer, too, but there are exceptions to generalities.

This has been a fun discussion :) when I first got online, I was way into premium planes, and I remember some of the long time woodworker preferring some types of planes that pat refers to as inferior. I just couldn't understand how they could, because it was plain to me that taking a thin smoother shaving was smoother with the heavier premium planes. And, of course the generalized notion was that the less precise planes couldn't control tearout, but we know that's not true about very many planes now. Strangely enough, the plane I probably use most productively is a $25 wooden try plane...I like it even better than the Stanley 7.

[Kees Heiden]

Hey, I'm as bad a bad ass engineer as all the others! I love tools and geeking about them endlessly :D. But I also like skills and learning new ones.

The Bailey plane is a brilliant design. It has its limitations, but the more I learn about them, the more I like. The light weight, the thin blade, the adjuster, the curved chipbreaker. All these points of critique are in fact brilliant when you learn how to use them. And as much I like my wooden planes, I must confess that the Bailey is easier to use. It's one of the most succesfull planedesigns ever made.

The light weight means less fatique and it makes them nimble.
The thin blade means less sharpening time.
The adjuster has backlash but it works perfectly allright and is very durable even when you clamp the blade a bit too much. Norris adjusters wear out faster especially when you clamp the blade too tight to the bed.
The thin curved chipbreaker. It takes quite a bit of finetuning usually to fit it to the back of the blade, but then, it is the easiest one to adjust to a fine setting in my shop.

And the planes work very well when proparly tuned. Even my type 11 #7 which is more then 100 years old. It didn't even need sole flattening, it's as flat as it can be. The post war UK made models are fine too, though they needed a bit more attention. Learning how to set the chipbreaker was a quantum leap in how they perform.

Wooden planes take more adjusting time, but when they are properly set, they glide so nicely over the wood, that's special too.

[george wilson]

Wooden planes do glide nicely,and they are less likely to damage your piece of work if you butt into something,or knock something with the wooden plane.

[David Weaver]

Learning how to set the chipbreaker was a quantum leap in how they perform.


that pretty much solved every issue I thought I had with them (chatter, tearout, iron that doesn't stay sharp long enough). The whole design in general, the bailey design, is so genius. I don't know if he borrowed from other designs, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of the actual tool, the originality, functionality and overall design is absolutely genius.

Realizing that standing around adjusting a plane to take a light cut when I should be taking a heavier cut solved the rest. That's one thing wooden planes helped me solve. It's not quite so easy on a long wooden plane to make a fine depth adjustment, and when you get down to it, you realize that often when you're trying to do that, you're being too fine which isn't very good for productivity.

[george wilson]

I really enjoy adjusting my wooden planes. After many years of daily use,you get to where it can be done quickly,with a few well placed taps.

[Pat Barry]

The Bailey plane is a brilliant design. It has its limitations, but the more I learn about them, the more I like. The light weight, the thin blade, the adjuster, the curved chipbreaker ... I must confess that the Bailey is easier to use. It's one of the most succesfull planedesigns ever made.
The adjuster has backlash but it works perfectly allright.


BTW, I am not a mechanic, it's much worse, I am an electrical engineer

Electrical engineer? Hmmph. What in the world can you know about mechanics as an electrical engineer - stick to your electrons. LOL JK Kees, I too am a EE.

None the less, I think we need to clarify what you mean by "it works perfectly allright". Yes, when you turn the knob, in the direction it was last turned, then, yes, it might in fact move the blade as you intended. But then, when your shaving turns out to be .001" and you really intended for it to be .010" (sorry David, I'm not always going for .001" shavings), then twirl away at the knob a bit until you engage the blade to actually move, but be sure to overshoot your target so you can spin the knob back a bit to take the backlash back out again and then creep up on your desire result. Take a shaving or two, turn the knob a bit, you'll get there soon enough. So yes, it does the job. Thank god our steering systems in cars don't operate like that. Can you imagine the carnage on the hiway system if the steering in a car was that loose? No, those cars would have been outlawed long ago in favor of the cars with rack and pinion power assisted steering. By the way, who came up with that anyway, some craftsman?

[David Weaver]

Electrical engineer? Hmmph. What in the world can you know about mechanics as an electrical engineer - stick to your electrons. LOL JK Kees, I too am a EE.

None the less, I think we need to clarify what you mean by "it works perfectly allright". Yes, when you turn the knob, in the direction it was last turned, then, yes, it might in fact move the blade as you intended. But then, when your shaving turns out to be .001" and you really intended for it to be .010" (sorry David, I'm not always going for .001" shavings), then twirl away at the knob a bit until you engage the blade to actually move, but be sure to overshoot your target so you can spin the knob back a bit to take the backlash back out again and then creep up on your desire result. Take a shaving or two, turn the knob a bit, you'll get there soon enough. So yes, it does the job. Thank god our steering systems in cars don't operate like that. Can you imagine the carnage on the hiway system if the steering in a car was that loose? No, those cars would have been outlawed long ago in favor of the cars with rack and pinion power assisted steering. By the way, who came up with that anyway, some craftsman?

Steering systems and planes are not similar issues. The idea that you're going for a .001" shaving and you get a .01" shaving never actually happens. The only practical difference I can see in the fineness of the premium plane adjusters is when you're fiddling around trying to get a half thousandth shaving. I seem to recall the backlash in my bailey smoother (probably the bailey plane I use the most) being one tug of the finger, but as a practical matter even that only occurs sometimes, and often not while I'm finish planing something. By that, I mean that half the time you're adjusting in the direction you already have tension, and if you adjust more there isn't any backlash at all. That's a typical situation as a plane iron wears. If you're adjusting much in general, you're wasting time - it occurs mostly when you're installing a freshly sharpened iron and then practically every plane adjusts at the same speed at that point.

I can imagine that if someone put an indicator on a plane with an estimate of thousandths of an inch after setting zero on a plane, there are lots of engineers and doctors and all kinds of professionals not very proficient with hand planes who would buy it and boast they'd never have to guess again. And then there would be a blog entry about whether or not the indicator was accurate enough.

The problem is lack of experience working in context and at a good pace, Pat, not a shortcoming in the tools you're criticizing.

[george wilson]

Maybe just forget about it,and adjust the Stanley plane with a brass hammer!!:)

[Kees Heiden]

My 1960 Volvo Duett has a lot of backlash in the steering. It's systematic, not poor maintanance. Still I've been all over Europe with that car, done quite a few of high mountain passes in the Alps.

When setting the depth I first give the adjuster a flick with my thumb to take up the slop. Then slowly advance the knob, often while pushing the plane along the board. You can set the shaving thickness very precisely that way. Look how the shaving gets through the mouth and adjust the lateral at the same time. Usually I don't measure my shavings. But when I did a bit of research last winter I set it in 0.01 to 0.02 mm increments. Being able to adjust it on the fly is a nice feature too.


My wooden planes take skill too. Each one is a bit different under the hammer. When I don't use a plane for a while I have to relearn, but it comes easilly enough.

So, things could certainly be better. But it doesn't distract too much from the ability to use the plane. It's at best mildly irritating.

[Jim Koepke]

...
None the less, I think we need to clarify what you mean by "it works perfectly allright". Yes, when you turn the knob, in the direction it was last turned, then, yes, it might in fact move the blade as you intended. But then, when your shaving turns out to be .001" and you really intended for it to be .010" (sorry David, I'm not always going for .001" shavings), then twirl away at the knob a bit until you engage the blade to actually move, but be sure to overshoot your target so you can spin the knob back a bit to take the backlash back out again and then creep up on your desire result. Take a shaving or two, turn the knob a bit, you'll get there soon enough. So yes, it does the job. Thank god our steering systems in cars don't operate like that. Can you imagine the carnage on the hiway system if the steering in a car was that loose? No, those cars would have been outlawed long ago in favor of the cars with rack and pinion power assisted steering. By the way, who came up with that anyway, some craftsman?

My understanding is the adjuster should be under tension when planing.

Once you have your thickness of cut set do you remove tension from the depth adjuster?

If my plane is set for a fine shaving and a thicker shaving is wanted there isn't any 'twirling' involved. Usually just a little movement of the depth adjuster brings me to the desired shaving thickness.

It may be many former owners of our planes set the lever cap too tight. This would be one sure cause of wear on the depth adjuster's threads and lands against the adjuster yoke.

jtk

[george wilson]

Yes,I think the adjuster should be under tension when planing. If not,if the lever cap is not REASONABLY snug,I'd think the iron might back up under pressure from the cut.

I wonder how may people have excessive trouble adjusting because they have their lever caps set too tight. Yes,backlash will be there,but the iron would be easier to slide if not grasped too tightly. I advise a little experimentation along those lines. Perhaps wax on the incline,and wax under the lever cap,or on the blade would help to get things sliding better.

In machine tools,there is a problem called "slip-stick". It is when heavy milling machine tables are too heavy for the lead screw to nudge a very small amount. Say a thousandth or two. Finally,pressure builds up and the table jumps a bit. Makes it harder to do close tolerance work. I think planes could be that way also,from dryness of their sliding surfaces making undue friction.

I ought to look at my old Stanley and see what would be involved in tightening up the tolerances of the screw and the adjusting lever. Perhaps it might be possible to at least snug up the lever with simple wood shop tools.

If I was bothered to death,I'd just make better parts,but that isn't an option for most. I'm just not interested enough to get into it.


As for Norris,it's a wonder the older ones aren't all broken. They have a screw that is threaded through a machined nut. The nut on mine can be squeezed shut a bit more by 2 screws and a slit in it.

The older ones have a 2nd. very slender screw that is threaded inside the larger screw. This inner screw is quite delicate. It has a ring on its end that goes around the head of the chip breaker screw. The curious thing it,the crazy way the inner screw works,it just DOUBLES the distance that ring travels when the larger screw is turned. You'd think the silly thing would HALVE the distance the ring travels. That would make sense. The net result is a very thin,delicate inner screw that would bend very easily. And,it does NOTHING except make the adjustment knob COARSER. Why?

On my late model Norris,they did away with the little inner screw,and just left the finely threaded larger screw. A much stronger system with FINER adjustment when the knob is turned.

I still would not say the Norris system is particularly durable. Certainly less durable than the Bailey system. I haven't used my Norris for some time. But,I'm certain it is not backlash free either. There is bound to be slack in how the screw is attached to the ring,and how well the ring fits the cap iron screw. I don't think my Norris was ever used. It still has the factory bevel on the blade. I'll have to look at it,and see how much play there is.

[Jim Koepke]

Yes,I think the adjuster should be under tension when planing. If not,if the lever cap is not REASONABLY snug,I'd think the iron might back up under pressure from the cut.

I wonder how may people have excessive trouble adjusting because they have their lever caps set too tight. Yes,backlash will be there,but the iron would be easier to slide if not grasped too tightly. I advise a little experimentation along those lines.

...


My lever caps are usually set by feel. This is usually in relation to how much effort is needed to move the lateral adjuster. A 1/16th turn of the lever cap screw can have a lot of effect on the other components of adjustment. If the depth adjuster is backed off a bit the blade should hold its setting for at least a few passes. If it is too loose your lateral adjustment may keep changing.

jtk

[george wilson]

Yes,once again my old addage of using DISCRETION holds true. It is the difference between being a good craftsman and a poor one. It is certainly an important component of successfully using tools.

[Pat Barry]

Yes,I think the adjuster should be under tension when planing. If not,if the lever cap is not REASONABLY snug,I'd think the iron might back up under pressure from the cut.

I wonder how may people have excessive trouble adjusting because they have their lever caps set too tight. Yes,backlash will be there,but the iron would be easier to slide if not grasped too tightly. I advise a little experimentation along those lines. Perhaps wax on the incline,and wax under the lever cap,or on the blade would help to get things sliding better.
.
Finally someone willing to be objective and offer a potential solution rather than reverting to the muck dragging and belittling of an entire group of people (engineers lets say) as if they were too unfamiliar with the basic pretense of the adjustment screw or too dense to know better, as is espoused by at least one other here. Thanks George.

And Yes, Jim, I completely understand the idea of tension on the blade thus my point that you need to back out the blade first and then bring it back to position desired. Iagree wholeheartedly with this comment.

And Kees, your systemic steering problem on the old Volvo may have gotten you where you were intending to go but I bet you sure had some white knuckle moments at higher speeds, windy conditions, passing semi-trucks and the like.

[george wilson]

Many times I served as a "seat of the pants" engineer for the museum. Got everything done successfully.

[david charlesworth]

I find that I am using less tension on the Bailey lever cap than I used to. The lateral and shaving thickness knob adjustments do not want to be uncomfortably tight.

Surely backlash ceases to be an issue once one understands it? Almost all mechanical systems have some. The idea that expensive planes will have none is ludicrous, just less). My Myford precision metal lathe slides have some. A micrometer may have the least.

To set a shaving, I start with the blade retracted and wind it out till the desired thickness is reached. A scrapwood edge is very good for this. Winding while moving, as Kees says, works well.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

PS fettling a poorly made tool and getting it to work well, is a most satisfying and rewarding passtime!

[george wilson]

You are agreeing with what I have said,David.:) It is necessary to think about little details,like how tight that lever cap really is,and does it slide easily,when coaxing the most out of any machine or mechanical device. Especially a bandsaw. You can make them do the most marvelous work if you know how to coax them along.

[david charlesworth]

Yes.

I know that you know what you are talking about !

David

[Kees Heiden]

Fun discussion, but it doesn't bring us closer to an answer to the question why the professional woodworkers considered the double iron plane to be better then the single iron plane. Stanley planes came a full century later then the wooden double iron plane. So, they did have high angle planes and they did have bevel up planes, but still they bought into the chipbreaker when it became available.

[David Weaver]

Kees, it's like using the magical sword in the legend of zelda. One must have 12 hearts to be able to understand why the chipbreaker took over.

(or maybe more accurately, it becomes evident once one has the experience to use the cap iron properly, and not immediately so evident before that).

[george wilson]

I know that you know that I know what you or someone else is ruminating about!!:)

[george wilson]

Kees,hasn't the usefulness of the chip breaker already been established some time ago here? I know you recall the extreme closeups of the Japanese video. That is the value of the double plane iron.

[Kees Heiden]

Kato's video and research show that the chipbreaker works. But it doesn't explain why it is better.

[David Weaver]

Yeah, you have to get 12 hearts before you're allowed to understand and use the magic sword. You can go to the man in the mountain and see it right away, but you have to earn being able to use it!

296417

[Kees Heiden]

Of course I am just teasing you all. Hopefully my new article will be online this weekend.

[Chris Padilla]

Sandpaper doesn't care about grain direction. ;)

[george wilson]

Actually,it does. Try running wood through a thickness sander the wrong way. It will not look as nice because of all the microscopic tears. The surface just isn't as smooth.

[Jim Koepke]

Fun discussion, but it doesn't bring us closer to an answer to the question why the professional woodworkers considered the double iron plane to be better then the single iron plane.

What were the comparative costs of these planes at the time?

Were they buying it exclusively for the double iron or were there benefits to a metallic plane above and beyond a wooden body plane?

What about the Bailey adjuster? Didn't this make a plane easier to use?

From my memory, the patent information on the Bailey cap iron makes it seem Leonard Bailey may not have known about the tear out prevention aspect of his own device. My recollection is the patent application mentions it was to help stiffen a thinner blade.

I have found the patent information in the past but am too tired to do it tonight.

jtk

[Winton Applegate]

Hello Kees,

First off let me say that I mistook your post and thought it was from Ian. We have spoke a few times and I have his e-mail so I was going to send this to him. I put a lot of time into it and now I see it is Kees and not Ian. I am going to post it here and let the moderator do what he will with it. I don't now if a cut and paste character line is the same as a "link" that takes you there and so is off limits. I got to go eat dinner before I faint and so here it is good or bad.

Also I probably said it some where in the thread linked to but if not think of the engineering terms "plastic deformation" which I am not talking about and "elastic deformation" which I am talking about.

Look at terms like "modulus of elasticity".
What I am saying is that edge is not unmovable just because it is triangular in shape and made of tool steel.

So I wrote to Ian :

I am sending you a PM because they won’t let me link you to the FWW forum from SawMill.
Yah, about that blade edge support thing. Is is such an obvious thing to me I can’t get it up to bang on about it any more. People can believe what they like. Including the fantasy that the bevel down with a chip breaker planes wood great but a bevel up does not. WHAT ? Or was the argument that a complicated mess of a thing does every thing that the simple stream lined BU does and is better to use because it is a complicated mess of a thing.
Sorry, I am loosing energy for this rapidly.
Here is a link to a thread with more links in that thread. Rather than me retyping it all again.
http://forums.finewoodworking.com/fine-woodworking-knots/ask-john-white/importance-chip-breaker-hand-planes
and one is of my discussion with Larry Williams the plane maker. I provided that link again bellow with the number of the exact post I would like you to read. The rest of that thread is a long and embarrassing attempt to draw the fecker out of the bushes so I could get a good look at him and he insisted on sniping, and in my opinion, trolling at me. Interesting how he accused me of “trolling” when I was one of the first people in the thread and he the come lately throwing rocks from out of sight.
I think I mentioned that I really like and respect him though all the game playing in the thread was, in my opinion, just that, game playing. At least George Wilson says yes it is me, I am a pro this is what I have done, check it out. Larry couldn’t even be so kind as post a photo of some one else's high angle wooden plane. I understand he couldn’t really “sell” his planes to me on FWW. How about a PM and a link. Nothing. That was frustrating.
This is an excerpt of what I am talking about and wrote there. The other “evidence”, or theory or argument I have is the “buzzing” that people talk about hearing while taking heavy cuts with the flexy flyers (Stanley bevel downs etc). It feels cheep compared to the slice one gets with the BU. That buzz is the blade being pull down into the wood, until it reaches a point where it is under so much tension it then pops back up at a slightly weaker part of the wood fibers; it is doing this at a high rate of cycles, not as fast as say a tuning fork but similar.
I recommend you spend time PLANING, including planing diagonal / cross gain (which is where the vibration is very apparent) with both plane styles and think a bunch and see what you make of it.

Note I am talking about production planing here not the butique one thou meaningless cuts David W. was railing against as being unproductive or some such.

Even if I am completely wrong about why; the Stanley BD still vibrates and the BU does not and the BU has fewer parts and a shallower learning curve. Many say the chip beaker supports the blade. Yah like pressing against a door so some one doesn’t open it from the other side and then discovering that the door opens the other way and all you are doing is HELPING them pull the door towards them and get it open. The chip breaker HELPS bend the blade down into the wood so it can dig in and then pop out tear out. Again the chip breaker is not preventing the blade from bending down it is pushing it down. It might dampen the upward motion when the blade finally reaches it’s downward bend and starts back up but it is no where as effective as the close support of a BU planes sole from underneath.


anyway here is my excerpt. to see it in context and in full go to (post #104629, reply #70 of 180)
here :http://forums.finewoodworking.com/fine-woodworking-knots/hand-tools/testing-sharpness-high-angle-blades?page=2 (http://forums.finewoodworking.com/fine-woodworking-knots/hand-tools/testing-sharpness-high-angle-blades?page=2)

Picture two ice picks protruding down on the underside of a board. The board comes in on a glide path roughly parallel to the ground plane. The picks are each at a fifty degree angle opening to the direction of travel. They snag on the ground as the board descends on the ground plane. One pick protrudes six inches and is easily bent under and or broken off because the forces acting on it over power the strength of the shape because the support is too far from the tip. Another protrudes a mere 1/4 inch and plows a groove and is hardly bent if at all because it is supported near its tip. The one protruding six inches as it is bent traces an arc and actually is deeper at the apex at ninety degrees to the board than it would have if it had plowed through the ground as if the ground were made of cream.

If that makes no sense to you, well I tried.

Later Kees

[Kees Heiden]

The buzzing sound from a Stanley plane is not the bevel bending. It is the entire blade flexing. It is easy to prove this flexing. Take a piece of paper and clamp it under the blade, near the levercap screw. Tighten the levercap screw so that the piece of paper is clamped with a minimal amount of pressure, you just can't pull it out. Now set the plane for a very thick cut and push the edge slowly against a piece of wood. While you push you will see that you can pull out the piece of paper. The blade bends.

Now, is this a problem? I don't have a problem with it, the wood looks plenty crisp and smooth when planing. Sometimes a Stanley plane can chatter, especialy at the start of the cut. That is visible, chattermarks, and not good. Chatter in the middle of a cut is very rare. You can avoid this startup chatter with a thicker blade, pulling the frog back so the blade is better supported, setting the chipbreaker very close to the edge and better handplaning technique.

It is highly unlikely that the bevel itself bends any apreciable amount under the pressure of woodcutting. Maybe someone could do some calculations? And if it would bend, do you think a 12 degree wedge under the blade, 2" wide and only supported at the edges, is going to help much?

But this is all rallying against the Stanley plane as if that is the only bevel down plane available. Bailey started around 1860. A double iron plane has been excavated in Cutlerystreet, London and is estimated to be from 1750. That's when the true carftsman who used planes all day long, day after day, decided that the double iron plane was a better design then the single iron plane. Bailey just followed the existing practice and designed a very functional plane around the double iron design. It's certainly not the best plane ever made, but it sure is one of the most succesfull ones.

[David Weaver]

I haven't had any chatter issues with Stanley planes in ultimate or penultimate cuts. I get skipping rather than chatter at a poorly started cut. On a rank set cut on a Jack, I do get a little of what I'd call zipper chatter - chatter that's barely perceptible, and that you can see if you look closely at the wood surface. I think that type may actually help a cut to be a little bit easier, but have no proof.

Jim, you're right about the patent, but I think that was to allay fears about the thinner than before seen iron. I think they knew well about the cap iron effect at that point, but I'm just guessing. The support definitely does get much closer to the edge at the point of cut than a single iron plane or an old double iron woodie.

[george wilson]

Winton,as usual,I cannot understand some of what you are trying to say.

I am a tired out old man who is losing some of his brain cells every day,so I beg you to try to make your points more concise and lucid.

I don't understand what your reference to "George Wilson" was about. Wish you'd clarify that,please.

I was always amazed at the Cooper's Shop in Williamsburg. Now,these are actual,real coopers who worked at Whitebreads brewery in England. They were found plying their trade in a shack with NO windows(egad!The English!!). They worked only by candle light. They had to make TWO beer casks per day,or starve. They are THE REAL DEAL.

They got hired to work here before I arrived in 1970 to be Master Musical Instrument Maker.

The amazing part to me was how they ground their bevels on their laminated irons for their long cooper's jointers(Of which in later years I was to make 2 or 3 for them,plus my own blades,which I forged out myself).

They'd grind a 3/8" wide bevel. VERY ACUTE. They did this because they could get more hand resharpenings per initial grind. Those ultra fine sandstone wheels which the purchasing secretary got made for us were very useless.

So,I always wondered HOW those long,super thin bevels would not flex and chatter while planing tough,hard,white oak staves. Those bevels looked so blasted THIN!!!

Yet,they DID leave cuts so smooth that their casks would hold beer UNDER PRESSURE,mind you,without leaking.

About the blades: The blacksmith liked to use 1070 steel: It forge welds more easily because of the lower carbon content; it does not BURN UP at white hot,sparkling, welding heat. But,those blades were,of course,not as good as blades of higher carbon steel.

They came begging to me. I felt sorry for the poor devils,trying to keep irons sharp on punishing white oak. Working out of doors in ALL weathers year round. I really felt bad for them.

So,I secretly made some blades out of A2 steel. They were not laminated,but were forged into a taper,and left black,and rather roughly forged just like the old blades. No one could tell the difference. They took these blades,sharpened them to their usual very acute angles,and were very grateful.

To boot,these acutely ground blades were used in wooden cooper's jointers. Yet,they still planed smooth enough to make beer proof joints.

What do you think of that?

[David Weaver]

George, the better condition planes I've gotten have a long bevel as you've described. Some more acute than others. Rather than reset the entire bevel, I've generally used them as they are and they have always held up fine. Whether or not they flex, I don't know, but when they are in the cut, they are stable and they make a nice smooth cut and don't chip or chatter.

[george wilson]

I have a Norris jack plane that was never actually used. It has a LOOOONG factory made bevel on its iron also. By the way,SORBY made at least most of their blades back when Sorby was a good brand.

Too bad the 1/16" thick piano finish lacquer on the wooden parts got beaten about from being tossed in a tool box forever,but not used. A finish that thick is just ludicrous. The old English could certainly get carried away about that sort of thing. And,on inappropriate objects. In Williamsburg years ago,they got a plaque with a coat of arms made in England,to hang in the Governor's Palace. It had an incredibly thick finish. Shiny as a jelly bean(actually,MUCH shiner). It was bound to craze with humidity changes. But,it was sure pretty for the time being!! I just call that poor planning ahead.

[David Weaver]

I have a Norris jack plane that was never actually used. It has a LOOOONG factory made bevel on its iron also. By the way,SORBY made at least most of their blades back when Sorby was a good brand.

Too bad the 1/16" thick piano finish lacquer on the wooden parts got beaten about from being tossed in a tool box forever,but not used. A finish that thick is just ludicrous. The old English could certainly get carried away about that sort of thing. And,on inappropriate objects. In Williamsburg years ago,they got a plaque with a coat of arms made in England,to hang in the Governor's Palace. It had an incredibly thick finish. Shiny as a jelly bean(actually,MUCH shiner). It was bound to craze with humidity changes. But,it was sure pretty for the time being!! I just call that poor planning ahead.

I've got a couple of old sorby irons (old as laminated and very vintage) and they are good irons, before they took a turn to whatever they're doing now.

I agree on the thick finishes. A lot of the restaurants around here have pour-on finishes on their tables, and those thick finishes remind me of that. I just don't like them that much, not anymore than I like an overbuilt plastic-looking finish on a guitar.

[george wilson]

Winton,I post this separately so you will see it clearly:

You are getting arrogant and insulting towards those great majority who use BD planes. That is just un necessary. Cool it off some,o.k..

I have a BU LN miter plane,and I like it just fine. I have a few old Stanleys. But,I plane with my own make of BD planes,metal or wooden. Anyway,you are getting too insulting.

I am a tired out old man,and I know that you know more than I do,but show some mercy to us poor underlings,please.

[David Weaver]

At the risk of sounding like warren (which isn't a particularly bad thing), Winton has gotten himself into hypotheticals talking about using a tool that he doesn't know how to use properly. People get very sure of themselves talking about things when they don't even know what they don't know.

It would be better to get advice about such things from people who actually know how to use the tools (I borrow the spirit of that from a few times when warren has corrected folks in the past for making assertions about tools or features of tools that they don't know how to use).

How do I know winton doesn't know what he's talking about? He's going on about bailey planes chattering and this or that, and it may be in this thread or another one, describing being able to use a single iron plane (at a higher bevel angle) to remove wood faster than a common bailey or vintage wooden plane would. The suggestion that a bailey plane can't plane tropicals is an issue with lack of experience.

I think winton is an engineer of some sort, perhaps industrial (one of the less technical engineering types, even, which should help him not get caught up trying to argue hypotheticals on a simplified technical but not practical basis). But he's falling into the same trap as pat was, asserting things without knowing what he doesn't know.

FWIW, I also have a technical background, but I try not to substitute simplified technical ideas for reality, especially when reality is readily available. I hope no beginners are taking winton's advice as suitable general advice.

[george wilson]

David,at least those pour on finishes are flexible enough to not craze with weather changes moving the wood. You can press a finger nail into them. That's how they survive. Eventually,the epoxy may continue to harden until it's too hard. Then,all will craze.

I am a bit nervous about airliners which are increasingly getting their fuselages glued together. I'm reminded of the one which lost the top of the fuselage while climbing out of Hawaii(I think). Passengers,belted in were o.k.,but a poor stewardess was sucked out and killed.

I don't trust the long term effectiveness and reliability of these new glues. But,I certainly would not glue an airplane up with hide glue,either. I believe in rivets and welds!!

[Warren Mickley]

Kato's video and research show that the chipbreaker works. But it doesn't explain why it is better.

The double iron plane is better because it leaves a finer surface. Cutting at a lower angle not only cuts more cleanly, it is less abusive to the edge of the iron. And for heavier cuts it is less effort than a high angle plane. These things are obvious to anyone with a volume of experience using the plane.

Seven years ago, in response to the suggestion that the double iron a "marketing fabrication and gimmick", I wrote this:
My feeling is that anyone who does not see the value of the double iron system probably does not understand how to use it.

296478

[Pat Barry]

... an engineer of some sort, perhaps industrial (one of the less technical engineering types, even, which should help him not get caught up trying to argue hypotheticals on a simplified technical but not practical basis). But he's falling into the same trap as pat was, asserting things without knowing what he doesn't know.

FWIW, I also have a technical background, but I try not to substitute simplified technical ideas for reality, especially when reality is readily available. .
I am really tired of your down talking engineers. Just exactly how are you qualified to talk about this subject at all? At least we understand the basic principles and mechanics involved. Sure, you can talk a good game. I believe your disparaging characterizations of engineers have to do with some sort of inferiority complex. Tell me, how were you trained that makes you such an authority? And quit using George and Warren as a crutch. Just because you think you know of their qualifications doesn't mean that you are actually qualified in any way. Much like a reporter - you don't need to really understand the principles, just talk a good story.

[george wilson]

This thread is headed for a lock.

I hope we have BOTH said our piece about arrogance and down talking.

And,I can barely stand up on my own,to say nothing of being used as a crutch. :) Well,not QUITE that feeble.

I have nothing against engineers,at least not GOOD ones. BAD ones,on the other hand: I had a car seat collapse in my Taurus because some guy at ford had the seat rails bent at a sharp 90º. They were 3/16" thick steel. Any fool knows better than to fold metal sharp like that. They had had a recall on Escorts the same year for the same problem,but hadn't bothered to recall the Taurus. I MADE the dealer fix it. While there,I looked under the front seat of next year's Taurus,and saw the rails were bent in a generous curve. So,I bought a new Taurus. One van later, that was the very last Ford I'll ever buy. Had to rebuild the front end at 50,000 miles. Constant trouble with other stuff. Lots of money. I'm driving Hondas now.

[David Weaver]

Pat, all I need to be able to do is use a double iron plane competently in regard to this discussion. I do most of my dimensioning by hand, which is also a condition of really having a good grasp on planing and sawing.

The comment about warren was to make sure warren wouldn't feel I was trying to imitate him.

George hasn't ever had any significant opinion on double iron planes before I brought it up a couple of years ago, that's not relevant here.

As far as engineers go, I have a lot of friends who are engineers, I've seen the pattern. it's because engineers have a technical background and solve problems for a living, and then feel that it would be easy just to apply the process everywhere, except they are lacking expertise compared to someone who has experience in this respect. Since most other professions don't have the same technical background solving problems, they don't even attempt, they wait and see instead.

This discussion reminds me of some of the types of discussions that go on with the razor boards. Like hobby woodworking, it's become sort of a white collar sport, and there are a few barbers in the mix, but not many. Because what's going on with a razor is so difficult to see (due to the fineness of the actual edge doing the shaving) there are all kinds of arguments about things - which way the razor has to be stroked on the stone, whether or not you can sharpen with slurry, whether or not old razors are better than newer (that one's pretty well settled, razors made before the 1970s or so and after 1900 are generally better than new razors, at least of the rank and file types that get no more expensive than several hundred). Anyway, the discussions get far away from "what happens when you have experience doing what you're doing and just compare the actual results?", and people will go ask a question of a metallurgist out of context and then come back and assert something that doesn't agree with observations of experienced practitioners. Then they will assert that the experienced practitioners don't have the fine sense to know what they are even seeing.

Things are or they aren't. You, as an engineer, I'm sure have some experience where you'd conclude that you can't really even solve the problem at hand unless you have enough experience to fully define what it is in the first place. And to do that, you have to understand what the problem is, what the context is, how it's been solved before, etc. Often times, you define the problem and come to a conclusion and then get additional experience and conclude that the definition of the problem needs to be changed because you didn't known enough about the situation even when the first conclusion was drawn.

This should make sense, as compared to someone without technical experience who does not formulate conclusions and constantly revise what the problem may be.

[Mel Fulks]

I see no insult to engineers. There are products on the market designed by engineers in an effort to make skill unnecessary that are looked on with contempt by those who DO have skill. That does not equate to a lack of respect for engineering. Most employed engineers have had to find a way to get something to work that they did not think was a good idea. There have been some talented high profile engineers who were relentless tinkerers and would ,in some cases, not
allow a job to ever be finished. Buckminster Fuller had a lot of that but was still a highly respected man.

[george wilson]

It is like the 30 something physics teacher at William and Mary who told me he could build a better violin than I could(after 50 years on my part). He had never made a violin,except for starting some rough tops and backs. And,they were so badly made,I would not have had an apprentice to do work like that. That bad an apprentice would have been reduced to only talking to the public (an interpreter).

The physics teacher knew nothing about the variations in wood hardness,grain,or weight. You learn to choose the best wood-and,that means a lot of experience. He did not realize that the whole process hinges on experience. Building a better violin based on what was learned from the last one. He had no concept of that,and never would. All was math to him. And math means little when working with natural,unpredictable materials.

I did not tell him that I came out in the 99th. percentile on a nation wide physics test we took when I was in high school. Most of that test just involved common sense,though.

[Pat Barry]

It is like the 30 something physics teacher at William and Mary who told me he could build a better violin than I could(after 50 years on my part). He had never made a violin,except for starting some rough tops and backs. And,they were so badly made,I would not have had an apprentice to do work like that. That bad an apprentice would have been reduced to only talking to the public (an interpreter).

The physics teacher knew nothing about the variations in wood hardness,grain,or weight. You learn to choose the best wood-and,that means a lot of experience. He did not realize that the whole process hinges on experience. Building a better violin based on what was learned from the last one. He had no concept of that,and never would. All was math to him. And math means little when working with natural,unpredictable materials.

I did not tell him that I came out in the 99th. percentile on a nation wide physics test we took when I was in high school. Most of that test just involved common sense,though.
George, I can agree that all other things being equal, there is no substitute for experience, and no engineer I know would blatantly attempt to claim they could make a better violin. But a violin and a handplane are in no way anything comparable. The violin is steeped in history and the entire concept is deeply rooted as to what a violin is, how it should look, how it should be constructed, how it must sound, what materials it is made of, etc. Its a task an engineer wouldn't really even want to be involved with because all of the variables are likely well understood by those in the trade of producing those instruments. In fact, I suspect a newly designed instrument resembling a violin as you know it would be looked upon as ludicrous - a problem that didn't need solving for example.

A handplane on the other hand is really an evolution of design over the course of history and you are certainly familiar with that as well. The designs are obviously still evolving as evidenced by some of the newer BU planes from LV as compared to the old Stanley designs and even those earlier. Its a tool and a tool is nothing more than that - a means to satisfy an end result (for most). Sure some consider them an end in themselves and that is not my point. There is space in this world for a better mousetrap and I'm sure in a century from now they will still have mice and still want some better way to deal with them. Its really as simple as that. Use all the knowledge that exists that you can get your hands on, research it, come up with an idea, employ the basic (and some not so basic) engineering tools and principles to design it, build a model, test it, collect data, refine the model, build more and test them to refine the design. That's what it is all about in engineering. Engineering is not just imagining something - its building it and proving that it works and doing so within all the constraints that exist (time, $, material availability, etc). There are no doubt improvements to be made in plane design.. Some will not care because they are too set in their ways to realize the benefit. Others, maybe even those beginners and other engineers out there will be frustrated with the existing tools and will welcome a better tool.

[David Weaver]

I hope it's clear that i'm not "disparaging" engineers because they are devoid of something, but rather because they have a set of skills that others do not and are attempting to apply them.

The issue, pat, with improvements in planes has to do with the "proving it works part", and the added variable now of who the market is. The idea that the plane that's best for the beginner is the best for the experienced doesn't really apply, at least in my opinion it doesn't. The beginner wants a plane that allows success without learning nuances, and the experienced user wants something very specific depending on what they do.

Now, if you are of the opinion that I'm riding george and warren's coattails after reading the thread where I detailed making a double iron coffin smoother, and describing the design elements of the plane, I can't really do anything to affect your opinion. I will generally defer to either of them when they express an opinion, because they are not only experienced, but studied, too. That doesn't mean I don't have my own ideas.

[george wilson]

Warren,I'm not quite sure what your point is. Yes,any one should know that a lower cutting angle will cut more easily,etc. . The point here,though,is the worth of the chip breaker in planing difficult wood. You seem to have been the one to have proved its use in practical experience.

I had a LN low angle plane at work. I have the miter plane at home. They work quite well. But,If I have wavey grain wood to plane,I'm going to go for the safety of the properly set chip breaker as opposed to tearing my expensive,figured wood.

I don't think there is a whole lot of difference in the actual angle the cutting edge enters the wood between the 2 types of planes. I got into grinding the bevel on my coffin smoother so that it was rather blunt compared to the ordinary blade. But,it gave a clearance angle of nearly nothing on the underside of the plane. I still got the plane very sharp,and that cutting edge was more durable than a more acutely ground one,too. The plane worked quite well. Back then though,I was not aware of how to set the chip breaker. No one else was,either,as far as I know. Had I known then what I know now,I would not have had to plane cross grain on curly maple,perhaps.

Even with a sharp BU plane,I still would not want to risk planing a very curly German maple guitar back. Too much money at stake,especially when planing an extra large piece for the back or sides of a baritone Viola da Gamba.

[Winton Applegate]

reference to "George Wilson" was about. Wish you'd clarify that,please.

I was talking, in another forum many years ago, to a pro woodworker and wooden plane maker. A pro. One of, if not, thee best wooden plane makers in the world. The best I am aware of.

AT the time I had no idea who he was.

He said there was a better plane than the one I was talking about and that I should look at getting one.

Then when I ask about him and his back ground. He was just silent.
Also he was not following up by at leas providing me with easy access to learning about a better way/plane.

You on the other hand are much more helpful.
If some one asks who you are you let people know who you are and what you do / have done as a pro.

Obviously THEN when some one looks at your work it speaks for it’s self. It is world class work.

And you are helpful in giving specific information to help someone learn how to solve the problem they are asking about.

For example you DO NOT say “I know how to help you, I know exactly what you need but I am not going to tell you were to find it”.. You DO NOT say “who am I ? Well I am not going to tell you.”

You are always helpful. I was saying that SOMEONE ELSE was not helpful.

I was singing your praises George.


What do I think of the Acute angle grind on punishing oak. Gives me pause. Something to think about and ponder over. Good history there. Thanks.

[Winton Applegate]

The double iron plane is better because it leaves a finer surface. Cutting at a lower angle not only cuts more cleanly, it is less abusive to the edge of the iron. And for heavier cuts it is less effort than a high angle plane.

FINALLY. It took 111 posts to get to this point. Wouldn't it have been simpler for someone to say that than all the endless questions about the questions?


These things are obvious to anyone with a volume of experience using the plane.

I have a volume of experience using these planes. Though my volume is a METRIC volume and so is not quite as large as the imperial volume that you possess.

These things were not obvious to me.
No
I am being serious now. I started with the BD and when I switched to BU I KNEW intellectually that the steeper bevel is harder to push and I always strive to use the minimum angle I can get away with because I know it is harder to push . . . but with all honesty it is not that noticeable. It certainly isn't obvious from using it.


it is less abusive to the edge of the iron.
I can see that. That makes sense.
Is it significantly longer lasting ? I haven't noticed an obvious difference. Perhaps a bit.


in response to the suggestion that the double iron a "marketing fabrication and gimmick", I wrote this:
My feeling is that anyone who does not see the value of the double iron system probably does not understand how to use it.

And in all seriousness again I say that I hope you then included simple and clear step by step instructions for the basic beginner on how to proceed to use the double iron plane so that they / I / we can understand how to use it.

And so
would you please, for the love of Bob, give me a link to that information so that I may read and assimilate it. Mostly I am a bit unclear on setting the breaker for coarse cutting. As I understand it way back is fine on a heavily cambered blade for diagonal planing rough cuts. My point is I do not see how I could screw THAT up.

And for fine finish, better than the BU (right ?) I am to set the chip breaker as close as possible to the edge on the order of the thickness of a sheet of paper or even less. I have not done that. I probably was about two thickness of a sheet of paper. I was getting tear out on the wood David mentioned. I back beveled the blade. The tearout stopped.

It took a whole lot of volume to get to that point. It was very frustrating that the instructions I found did not include what ever I am about to discover in the link that I look forward to following from you .

There is a big gap there for me from cross grain try plaining or jack planing, I shy away from using the term scrub planing so we don't get into specifically the scrub plane which is a single iron plane. I am quite enamored with my LN bevel down scrub by the way.

Anyway there is a big gap there between the cross grain planing with the chip breaker back a ways and the with the grain planing with the chip breaker set very close to the edge so there is no tearout while taking fairly heavy cuts with the grain. Some one admitted in this thread that when the chip breaker is set close enough not to get tear out then the depth of cut is not that great.

I simply do not get where one goes at that point to take fairly heavy cuts and not keep tearing up the surface.
Where does one go at that point?
Please.

[Winton Applegate]

Most of that test just involved common sense,though.

that is what I am ATTEMPTING to apply here, that an about ten years of reading what others have to say about the subject. Quite a bit more than that actually but of late it has gotten rather bogged down in dead ends and repetition. I look forward to discovering a new avenue very soon perhaps tonight.

Apparently I am failing at my attempt to apply common sense and observation while using the tools.

I have solved problems in the past using common sense and specific reading and my distantly related studies where the experts were stumped and gave up . . . for instance in miss directed oil galleys in automobile engines.

The expert with all the experience caused the problem at the machine shop and now I got to solve it. Thanks expert.

[Winton Applegate]

a better mousetrap

I am a live trapper. I take the little sucker across a body of water and turn it loose so it can't find it's way back.
I once had a perfect live trap. I bought it at a health food store. It was soooooo easyyyyy to set and use and worked for me and the mouse.

I left it at a house when we moved. I have been searching since for one like it. Some of the ones I have bought are torturous to the animal to the point of driving them mad with panic. Or my latest one by a company that specializes in all sizes of live traps is ludicrously difficult to set. I is like playing a game of . . . what was that game where you had to operate on a fake body and not touch the sides with the tweezers. OH Operation right ? it is like that to set only you have to lay on the floor on your side with a flash light and a long spoon to do it. Any takers on that one ?

Ha, ha,

[Winton Applegate]

Warren,I'm not quite sure what your point is. Yes,any one should know that a lower cutting angle will cut more easily,etc. . The point here,though,is the worth of the chip breaker in planing difficult wood. You seem to have been the one to have proved its use in practical experience.

I had a LN low angle plane at work. I have the miter plane at home. They work quite well. But,If I have wavey grain wood to plane,I'm going to go for the safety of the properly set chip breaker as opposed to tearing my expensive,figured wood.

I don't think there is a whole lot of difference in the actual angle the cutting edge enters the wood between the 2 types of planes. I got into grinding the bevel on my coffin smoother so that it was rather blunt compared to the ordinary blade. But,it gave a clearance angle of nearly nothing on the underside of the plane. I still got the plane very sharp,and that cutting edge was more durable than a more acutely ground one,too. The plane worked quite well. Back then though,I was not aware of how to set the chip breaker. No one else was,either,as far as I know. Had I known then what I know now,I would not have had to plane cross grain on curly maple,perhaps.

Even with a sharp BU plane,I still would not want to risk planing a very curly German maple guitar back. Too much money at stake,especially when planing an extra large piece for the back or sides of a baritone Viola da Gamba.

Well at least you all will have something to read in the morning if I keep at it with replies.

Civil and respectful replies I intend. Thank you George.

To jump in here a minute I believe I see what they are saying. The standard 45° bedded BD is , well , a 45° CUTTING ANGLE.
CUTTING ANGLE. The definition of that is very important.

The BU can be a much much steeper CUTTING ANGLE than that (or shallower) but he is right in that I was talking about a CUTTING ANGLE ( not sharpening angle) of in the neighbor hood, some times, of 65°. That is a huge difference to be sure.

Clearance angle, under the blade, is another topic. For the BD that is bed angle MINUS sharpening angle. For instance 45° bed angle minus 30° sharpening angle leaves 15° clearance angle.

What I think is being said here about the BD being easier to push is the cutting angle is 45° and so is (or should be) much easier to push than a 65° cutting angle. That with the chip breaker one can use a 45° cutting angle to cut difficult wood that would require a BU with a 65° cutting angle SOME TIMES.

What my brain bangs against and gives me a head ache over is the chip breaker being even more of a barrier IN MY VIEW.

It has been said in other threads that the chip breaker is not a barrier because the blade is severing the wood first before it is really an issue.

I have trouble with that for a couple of reasons but I think I understand what is being said here.

[Kees Heiden]

Winton,

Before the "Great Internet Chipbreaker Revolution of 2012", it was indeed a bit difficult to find specific details about how to set and use the capiron. After that there has been some effort to publish something usefull.

In the woodcentral article section you can find this piece from David Weaver: http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=newarticles&file=articles_935.shtml

Together with Wilbur Pan I have written an article for Popular woodworking. It's in the April issue 2014: http://www.popularwoodworking.com/articleindex/chipbreaker-theory-use

I published a short instructional video on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjpzta0FuY

Regarding your specific question about the jackplane. First bear in mind that difficult wood and thick shavings are not a match made in heaven. There is just no way to get a tearout free surface with a 1/32" shaving along the grain, no matter the cutting angle or chipbreaker setting. With the chipbreaker set as close to the edge as possible (even overlapping the corners of a cambered blade), the best you get is some limiting of the depth of the tearout, so it isn't so much trouble to remove later. But the fairly typical 8" cambered jackplane is best used across the grain. Then you get your tryplane with mildly cambered blade and close set chipbreaker and work along the grain to remove the jackplane ridges without introducing more tearout. The last spots of tearout left are best removed with a smoother. At the other hand, when I am preparing a small piece of wood like for a sawhandle or so, I do everything with one plane and don't care about different cambers. I just set the iron less rank and set the chipbreaker closer to the edge as I get closer to a finished surface.

Hope this was somewhat helpfull. I think you are just as much a geek as I am, so you might be interested to really measure how close the capiron is. This is not something done during normal work, but it is insightfull to get an idea how a 0.1 or 0.2 mm setting looks like. I have tried with my vernier caliper of with feeler gauges and got somewhat usefull information. But the most accurate method is a microscope with calibrated measuring software. I am NOT advicing anyone to buy a microscope to measure capiron distances, but it is kind of fun when you happen to have one.

And appart from all literature and internet advice, the best way to learn to use the chipbreaker is experience. One tip: "When you still get tearout, set it closer".

[Warren Mickley]

Warren,I'm not quite sure what your point is. Yes,any one should know that a lower cutting angle will cut more easily,etc. . The point here,though,is the worth of the chip breaker in planing difficult wood. You seem to have been the one to have proved its use in practical experience.



My point has long been that it is hard to imagine that anyone who actually learned how to use a double iron plane would not want to use it. The advantages in efficiency and surface quality are really obvious to an experienced user. I took a lot of abuse over the years for suggesting this. A manufacturing company is going to have a tough time making improvements to a plane if they can't even get up to speed with 18th century technology. As one example, Lie Neilsen made an "improved chipbreaker", but since they had no idea how to use a cap iron they thought it best to flatten out the bevel. And I think for a while the cap iron could not even be put close enough to the edge to be effective.

I can imagine a company with a good marketing department could sell new and improved violins. Or new bow hair that lasts three times as long as horsehair. But to improve a violin you have to be able be able to play the violin at least a bit. You have to get up to speed with 17th century work, which is not easy. You can't just get amateurs to test your work, you really need the best players. Violinmaker Samuel Zygmuntowicz could live anywhere in the world and sell his instruments, but he lives in Brooklyn so that he has access to the world's best players and historic violins.

[george wilson]

There are some new violins. Made out of carbon fiber. Cellos,too. They are ugly,soul less looking instruments. The cello has no "points" on its body. So,it became a strangely shaped,rather amorphous thing. Yet,they sound good,and some players use them. Certainly easier to take the abuse of traveling with them(where so many instruments get broken).

There is artificial bow hair,but it isn't making it! Horse hair has microscopic teeth that help hold the rosin and grab the strings. Nylon hair is for students.

I have heard about a guy who apparently makes great sounding violins out of balsa wood!! They are funny,awkward looking things,too. I think it will still be a long time before the classical violin will be out of vogue.

But,this is not helping this ridiculously long debate about how many angels can dance on the cutting edge of a plane. I think if Winton is enamored of his BU planes,he should just stop arguing and go use them. Your actual,real life accomplishments are not impressing him. He has made up his mind. Do not confuse him with FACTS!!:)

[David Weaver]

As one example, Lie Neilsen made an "improved chipbreaker", but since they had no idea how to use a cap iron they thought it best to flatten out the bevel.And I think for a while the cap iron could not even be put close enough to the edge to be effective.

That's correct (regarding the LN planes). some were short and some were at the bleeding edge of adjustment to be able to be set relatively close. I had a jointer that could be set close enough for a coarse shaving but not for a fine one, but I wasn't using it that much by the time. LN planes are very nice planes, but they would've been well advised to try to keep the bailey or bedrock design and improve the consistency or quality of the components without changing them much.

As far as the shape, I don't know what improvement the "improved" cap iron is. I guess you can mill it out of bar stock, but you'd have to stamp the bailey style with reliable accuracy - which I thought they had mastered, anyway. I have had better luck with a bailey cap iron than any other design (the curved type and stock profile), and the feel of it with a tight lever cap is far better than a flat slab of bar stock with a little lip (which doesn't have that same spring). If they wanted to keep with their idea of making things heavier, they should've just made a heavier bailey-style stamping.

[Kees Heiden]

The problem with a lot of old Bailey capirons is that they don't fit very well anymore on the back of the blade. Lots of gaps, which fill up with jamed shavings. It takes some time to cure this, but it is a worthwhile investment of ones time. Sometimes they lost any spring they had and then you have to bend them a bit to get a tighter fit.

The LN capiron has a leading bevel of only 25 degrees, which is really too low. The curved front of the Bailey works better. So you need to put at least a small microbevel around 45 degrees on the front of the LN capiron.

[Derek Cohen]

Stanley + chip breaker vs high angle planes

BD vs BU

LN vs LV

Hollow grind vs flat grind

Free hand vs honing guide

Figure-of-8 vs side sharpening

Japanese vs Western saws

Japanese vs Western planes

Japanese vs Western chisels

Wood vs Metal planes.

Vintage vs Modern

etc

etc

etc

Actually, it is interesting .... but in small doses. Sometimes it goes on f-o-r-e-v-e-r .....

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Kees, what you describe is exactly why I mentioned in the other thread that it's worth an extra 10 bucks of ebay price to buy a plane from someone who has taken the time to show that the cap iron has little wear and the iron is pit free and with a lot of life left.

(I say that because items with lots of pictures bring more money on ebay).

I think my LN cap iron was set somewhere in the 45 to 50 degree range (my favorite range for a cap iron), but I sold the plane. I've just had better results with the curved bailey design (and the old cap irons that are curved) than with a cap iron that has a specific flat bevel honed onto it, but I don't know why that would be. It's subjective to some extent, I guess.

I did have a friend ding up a LN cap iron after he honed it to its primary angle and a sharp point. He had to get a replacement from LN (i'm not sure what possessed him to do that, but I guess he felt if the iron was sharp, then the chipbreaker should be, too.

[george wilson]

Derek: You are exactly right. But,don't forget sharpening stone threads. And stropping. We need to start one about HONING FLUIDS.

These are all hypothetical topics where everyone just gets aggravated.

I wonder how I have stumbled along through life and made anything at all since 1954. I do everything completely wrong!!!:)

[David Weaver]

If we had access to a bench when most of us are on here, we wouldn't type much.

I wrote an article a while ago describing how to set a cap iron, I can't believe anyone would contend there's not a guide out there. Kees wrote one then, too, in coordination with wilbur. I don't want to put words in warren's mouth, but warren knows what warren knows, and I get the feeling that if you're not going to get something, warren may not feel that it's his job to try to parameterize everything so every beginner gets it.

the same way larry williams will not argue with someone if he doesn't think they know enough to irritate him.

I kind of feel at this point the way warren does. If someone can't "get it" after honest experimentation, then maybe it's not for them and I don't have any interest in arguing other than to say (paraphrased) what warren has pointed out before - that it's probably not good to argue conclusions about something that someone doesn't know much about. I wouldn't argue about spokeshaves or chair making, or even turning, and especially not complex carving - I'm not very good at them. At this point, I know more about plane design than most amateurs, I'm willing to argue about it, but not for very long if I get the sense that the person I'm talking to doesn't know about the same amount.

[Derek Cohen]

I have worked with interlocked Australian hard woods and handplanes for nearly two decades. Most of this was using smoothers with high cutting angles, be they on a single iron BD or a BU plane. In the past 2 or 3 years I have included BD double-iron planes with a tuned chip breaker.

In my experience, Stanley chip breakers are not as reliable as those from Veritas and Lie-Nelsen. Yes, they need to have a micro bevel ground at 45-50 degrees at the leading edge, but I find their lack of springiness easier to set close to the edge. Stanley work well, but they need more care in setting up. Your mileage may vary.

I have 4 ultra reliable smoothers. I have many smoothers (I have many planes!), but if I were to choose just 4 of them to take that final shaving without hesitation and without a test shaving, then these would be ...

1. Marcou S15 bevel up smoother (15 degree bed, 50 degree bevel, bevel up)
2. Lee Valley Bevel Up Smoother (BUS) (12 degree bed, 50 degree bevel, bevel up)
3. HNT Gordon smoother (60 degree bed, bevel down)
4. Stanley BU infill smoother (shop made, 25 degree bed, 35 degree bevel used bevel up).

Does it matter that these planes are mostly bevel up, or that they are single iron? Frankly I don't care. They are amazing performers on the wood I work.

What of the Stanley+chipbreaker smoothers? There are times I get superb results (my best performer is a Stanley Type 11 with a LV PM-V11 blade and LV chipbreaker. It just never fails). However the results of others, including LNs, is just not as reliably good as the BUs and high angle bed planes.

Your mileage may vary.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

I simply do not get where one goes at that point to take fairly heavy cuts and not keep tearing up the surface.
Where does one go at that point?

Either to the sharpening stones or the bandsaw.

How heavy a cut are you trying to take?

When taking a thick shaving a plane's blade starts acting more like a lever lifting the wood than it does a scalpel surgically slicing through the wood.

jtk

[David Weaver]

I have solved problems in the past using common sense and specific reading and my distantly related studies where the experts were stumped and gave up . . ..


This one is not going to end up the same way, though. For a long time the "common sense" was that a cap iron served to do nothing other than stabilize a blade. Warren was the only person I recall contradicting that....literally the only person. It was "common sense" that we just needed to have a really heavy iron, and then maybe "common sense" that we needed to have finer abrasives than were available to the average shop worker in the past, and "common sense" that people were just tolerant of tearout in the past or had better wood than we did. (some of that is true, they probably had better lumber than we generally have available, but lumber quality went down long before recently, though).

This is a situation where scenario analysis is necessary, and not analysis of variables individually.

[george wilson]

BUt ,I have the wood they used to use. Much of my wood is over 100 years old.

Old wooden planes had a plenty thick enough iron even when it was a single iron!!!

Common sense is that this thread WILL end being locked.

Stop using Warren as a crutch!!!:):):)

[David Weaver]

Yeah, I guess by that I mean that it was easier to be very particular about grain orientation when you had gloms of gigantic old growth trees to cut, and cutting was a large amount of labor.

Now our wood goes through mills quickly because the market doesn't really demand the same quality, and it's probably not generally available due to desire to not waste anything. I live in western PA, and the cherry that I get here from local commercial lumber yards is terrible - it's sorted so that all of the boards are the same width, but they've been poorly sawn and they all come from different trees with bad color. That's just one example.

It's easier to always plane with the grain if the lumber is ideal, but before we get swept up in cap iron this or steep angle that, I guess we should see if we have an opportunity to plane downhill in the first place where none of it matters.

[Warren Mickley]

People have been complaining about the timber they use for quite some time. Here is a snippet from Harrison (1577). "the same stuff which in times past was rejected as crooked, unprofitable, and no use but the fire, doth now come in the fronts and best parts of the work"
296540

[David Weaver]

I wonder if it's regional (as in as the original lumber from a region gets used, and then when you can't get the same quality you did before, you complain about it).

For me, the reference is between the now retired lumber dealer who would bring wood that was sawn from the same tree, and done so with car to limit runout, vs. what I get at my local commercial dealer where apparently anything goes within a liberal limit of the definition of FAS (lots of sap, bad color, non matching color, endgrain running into the face of a board).

I've noticed that some dealers have gotten creative and call this "character grade" wood now. It's not very nice to work it with hand tools when you're trying to create nice joints.

[Jim Koepke]

Some of the sawyers around here look at you funny when you mention quarter sawn.

jtk

[david charlesworth]

A little late here, I was working. Going back a page or so.

I really like the L-N "new improved" c/b design. It avoids a problem I came across, (not often) where the Stanley type lever cap front edge, touched the C/B some way down the slope, instead of on top of the curve. Advancing or retracting the blade then becomes impossible.

However I have a serious problem with ALL manufacturers for not telling us that the front edges of their C/Bs need checking and may need some attention. I do mean all. I don't think I have e ver seen one which was ready to go.

It's a bit like suggesting that the plane works out of the box!!

Expecting a plane to work without sharpening the blade, is a bit like expecting a car to go without petrol.

David Charlesworth

[Winton Applegate]

There is just no way to get a tearout free surface with a 1/32" shaving along the grain, no matter the cutting angle or chip breaker setting.

Oh yah ? Is that a challenge ?
I’m kidding Kees
Kidding
I’m listening . . .


Hope this was somewhat helpful.

I sure appreciate you taking the time to post many links.
I will enjoy your articles and Vid. I’m sure.


I think you are just as much a geek as I am,
Guilty as charged.

Thanks for the metric numbers. (ha, ha, the first thing I did was convert the 1/32” into mm so I could digest it better.)


so you might be interested to really measure how close the capiron is.

What I was thinking I would do is set it by pressing lightly into some wood and tighten the screw, then press it into some typing/printer paper. I figure if it lightly comes through then it is about .003” and if it doesn’t then it is well under that pushing .001 to .002. I understand it is quite possible to look at it and tell but I need to get in the ball park first and then experiment from there.

Thank you !

PS:
The main thing is to set it so it works and not worry about the numbers.

Roger that.

[Winton Applegate]

1. Marcou S15 bevel up smoother (15 degree bed, 50 degree bevel, bevel up)
2. Lee Valley Bevel Up Smoother (BUS) (12 degree bed, 50 degree bevel, bevel up)
3. HNT Gordon smoother (60 degree bed, bevel down)
4. Stanley BU infill smoother (shop made, 25 degree bed, 35 degree bevel used bevel up).

THANK YOU
I was going to respond to George Wilson that I would have no hesitation taking one of my franken planes, BU to the extremely valuable instrument wood. A test cut or three first of course to see what I need to use. I have great confidence in my planes and my ability to get them to produce a great surface.

HOWEVER obviously I have no business discussing instrument planing with him because I have never made an instrument. (I have read quite a bit about them in books that I have purchased and read cover to cover just because I want to learn about that part of wood working. To be as aware as I can about the theoretical process) sorry if that is too dilettante and unrealistic (I can apply some of it to some of my much less involved work). I really enjoyed studying about that though.

So that's all. And of coarse there is quite a difference between the rocks and boulders we plane and the instrument wood.
Can't wait to try some Ip'e.

Spruce is tops in my book (no pun intended but there it is again; my subconscious at its best) and maple if it can help produce sounds like Ann-Sophie Mutter, (I can go to sleep after listening to her Mozart and wake up with it still playing in my head ! That never happens with any one else for me)
sounds like: Joshua Bell, Hilary Hahn, Janine Jansen, and that is just the young'ns.
I love how Joshua Bell , during studio recordings, conducts the orchestra with his eye brows while he is playing his violin like a rock star. He's a BAD WHAMMMER JAMMER. In a civilized and sophisticated sort of way. I am like soooooooo jealous.
Seriously.

[Winton Applegate]

However the results of others, including LNs, is just not as reliably good


You said a mouthful there !
That is where I couldn't get 'er done.
I just assumed LN knew what they were doing when they built a BD plane. I forgave the less than stellar blade backs (way back then ; they are fine (ish) now) because I assumed it was helping to get an affordable plane into my hot little sweaty newbie hands.
Maybe I couldn't get the chip breaker close enough because I couldn't get the chip breaker close enough.
?
Naw
I remember slipping 'er over the edge and fowling my edge a few times so that wasn't it . . . all of the time at least. I do recall maxing out the adjuster though. That wouldn't have stopped me . . . I would have just busted into it with my metalworking tools until I took care of that. Believe you me. Or returned it for another plane of the same type which I have done once or twice for other issues.
Maybe the angle of the cap iron. I definitely made sure the fit between the front of the cap iron and the top of the blade was perfect / no gaps. I knew enough to do that much anyway.

[Winton Applegate]

Carbon fiber
I picture my self on my death bed, about a hundred and fifty years old
:)
gasping out my last and I hear some one mention their Carbon Fiber this or that.

My last words are likely to be : Bawwwww nothin' but glue and pencil shavings, glue and pencil shavings. Nasty darn razabaza blank blank.

[Winton Applegate]

It's a bit like suggesting that the plane works out of the box!!
I think I am missing the point. I suppose you mean they should's say it does if it doesn't. Not that NONE DO. But you are also kind of making my previous point that a customer, really, should not be expected to be a time traveler or a mechanical engineer to make their three or four hundred dollar hand plane work.

By the way these two hand planes worked out of the box flawlessly, Zero fettling, zero sharpening. But then I paid the nut and got what I paid for.

Yah that second one is an Old Street plane. Out of the box, to the bench and instant magic. Within their intended use . . .
here I go again . . .
no tear out and no real chip breaker.
OK enough already.

[David Weaver]

Winton, derek is the only other person I have run into who hasn't been able to get satisfactory performance out of a cap iron, and I don't know why. It may be because of the wood he's using, we don't have much access to it, but it is not as though I haven't planed everything up to and including cocobolo with a stanley 4. More difficult wood causes a little more trouble, but not an insurmountable level of trouble.

I read this, as I said earlier, as you comparing something that doesn't take any inclination, and then at the same time comparing it to something that you haven't been able to do well.

Once you know how to use the double iron, it's trivial, and much more useful when the cuts get heavier. Comparing a plane that's "ready out of the box" "within its intended role" is going back to the argument that what's ultimately better isn't so because it's not easily attainable in 15 minutes. there is also more to woodworking than smoother shavings.

[Derek Cohen]

David, I did not say that I do not get a satisfactory performance. I said that I find the performance unreliable compared with the alternatives.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Ahh, a difference, but one I don't have any issue with (reliability).

[Pat Barry]

I am a live trapper. I take the little sucker across a body of water and turn it loose so it can't find it's way back.
I once had a perfect live trap. I bought it at a health food store. It was soooooo easyyyyy to set and use and worked for me and the mouse.

I left it at a house when we moved. I have been searching since for one like it. Some of the ones I have bought are torturous to the animal to the point of driving them mad with panic. Or my latest one by a company that specializes in all sizes of live traps is ludicrously difficult to set. I is like playing a game of . . . what was that game where you had to operate on a fake body and not touch the sides with the tweezers. OH Operation right ? it is like that to set only you have to lay on the floor on your side with a flash light and a long spoon to do it. Any takers on that one ?

Ha, ha,
Have you tried the paint bucket mousetrap? Google it. My engineer buddy at work swears by it. At least he is catching mice and they are alive and can be taken to the other side of the river if you wish.

[Jim Koepke]

Have you tried the paint bucket mousetrap? Google it. My engineer buddy at work swears by it. At least he is catching mice and they are alive and can be taken to the other side of the river if you wish.

In some areas transporting a rodent is subject to a fine. Have you ever used a catapult? Or maybe one minus the -apult?

jtk