Mechanics of chipbreakers and high cutting angles in woodworking planes. Abstract. [Archive]

Winton Applegate

09-14-2014, 6:22 PM

The vertical axis displays the measured forces Fc and Fn. The unit is kgf/6mm. This is the force in kg measured on a wood sample width of 6 mm.
I was wondering what it meant when I first read it on the side of the graph.
kg/6 mm
?
So the sample planed was only 6mm wide ?
Or the sample planed was wider and the UNIT only is 1 6mm unit ?
Kind of leaves out the effect of the bending force of a significant / realistically wide cut with the blade.
Doesn’t it ?

I left the above thought in but now that I have seen the close up in the video and now I see the hewn stock was wider than 6 mm I see the 6mm is just one unit.

If a person took a cut on a plank the curl would be well over an inch wide perhaps even two inches wide. Oops, sorry I forget you use metric to.
well over 25 mm perhaps even 50 mm wide.

While taking a realistically wider cut like that, as compared to the narrow work being planed in the machine, the difference is bound to be significant especially when we include the issue of edge support at the throat or lack of it (see the illustration of the crossection of the plane's frog set forward to close up the throat) (wow I never reallized the support stared so far up the blade) and the difference between a 30° sharpening angle blade tilted up to SIMULATE a 60° BU and a true BU bedded at 12° supported much closer to the edge and sharpened to 48°

Again I would have liked to have seen a wider sample; wide enough to accommodate the full width that the blade could have taken normally in a normal planing operation on a face not an edge. That after all is what we are striving for, a chip out free face surface.
Face planing puts significantly more total force across the face of that blade per unit of time and so could, could mind you lead to the blade flex / oscillations I was talking about.

The cutting speed doesn’t have much effect, certainly not at hand planing speed.
I think you will admit that planing at more than the rate shown, on the order of a dive down a plank by an adrenaline charged neander could have some effect on the data.
Cutting faster could increase the oscillations per second and amplitude of the oscillations. There is probably a surface feet per minute number where the friction/heat and the general resistance starts to multiply disproportionally. I don’t think it is at machine cutter speed but down in the hand planing speed.

Cutting is with the grain I believe in the charts. That kind of alternated in the text.
and yet we/you are talking about tear out, which happens against the grain . . . also when planing against the grain mightn't the Fn be different since the edge is being pulled down into the grain ?

OK I was with you up to that point preparing to submit to an over whelming onslaught over the walls of my fortress of peace and contemplative contentment.
I was starting to consider which TEAM of stones to use to do my final sharpening on my hari-kari knife . . . then . . . thennnnnnn
I saw it.

Following the link to David Weaver’s photo of the rowed grain mahogany before and after . . . I must say, I can see what appears to be chatter marks before and after in the tear out areas and they are still there in the tear out free photo.

so not AS good as a BU then ? Rather confirming my flexing blade observations in the past. I am just calling it as I am seeing it.

I CAN see where some one with a BD would then reach for a scraper or (whispering now as if introducing the topic of nipple piercing in a nunnery) sand paper.
I never, until now, really understood the attraction of scrapers. I have a lot of them (as a result of searching for some that are not ruined in the act of shearing or punching them out or what ever, and even found some that are good enough quality to be able to sharpen and use (just so I knew how) but never needed one really.
I noticed in the links the topic / goal of eliminated tear out and chatter was then modified with the words “Nearly” and “Reduce ”.

Kees I read your enlightening article and appreciate all your work. It is fantastic there are great articles still being published in the magazines, well in one magazine anyway.

In the next link to the next vid it looks like the lever on the lever cap was really closed with a lot of force. That could bend the blade further down and add clearance and so make up for some of the rounding from hand sharpening. That was a tip. I had shied away from setting the screw to put that much force/resistance on the lever. That has never felt right to me. Live and learn. I like the bench with the square dogs.

Once again a narrow strip of wood was used in the vid. Keeps the high forces off the less rigid blade configuration. Fairly soft wood. I would be more convinced by a wider face of more challenging wood/hardness and for a longer planing duration than a few strokes. Part of the proof is durability and performance over at least a few board feet of work face.
I know what the charts said. Lets see it on the wood.

It probably sounds like I am just being an idiot that will never allow himself to change but . . . at it’s worst 30% more effort and some reduction in durability (that means a lower percentage for many/ most some what less difficult applications) I might be willing to still go that rout for the trade off of the over all planing experience of the BU (I won’t hammer all that out again in text) .
Time for me to spend time in the shop experimenting with what I have learned and to see what I can do if I practice, practice, practice. I thought I had got past all that but . . .

Well it has been a freewheeling, fun filled, fantastic trip together guys.

I just have one question, I was a little unclear in the second link when you mentioned something called . . . a . . . sander ? ? ?
Kees what issssss that ?

TTFN
(ta ta for now)

David Weaver

09-14-2014, 8:30 PM

Winton, that's not my photo. That's ellis wallentine's photo (the editor of the article). I requested initially that he work (he had just begun experimenting with a cap iron) to eliminate the tearout as I wouldn't consider it acceptable, and ellis felt that showing a reduction in tearout was as good as showing an elimination. I didn't agree, but didn't figure it to be a good time to be an inflexible jerk given that ellis was volunteering his time.

None of the pictures, in fact, are mine.

Your grasping at straws at this point asserting that there may be a materially nonlinear effect without any real reason to suspect such a thing occurs, especially when you can literally go to your bench and feel that it doesn't, is a waste of discussion with no possible payoff.

"only a 30 reduction" in something that is a very physical effort. :rolleyes:

Steve Voigt

09-14-2014, 11:19 PM

While taking a realistically wider cut like that, as compared to the narrow work being planed in the machine, the difference is bound to be significant especially when we include the issue of edge support at the throat or lack of it (see the illustration of the crossection of the plane's frog set forward to close up the throat) (wow I never reallized the support stared so far up the blade) and the difference between a 30° sharpening angle blade tilted up to SIMULATE a 60° BU and a true BU bedded at 12° supported much closer to the edge and sharpened to 48°

I can't speak for Kees, but my impression is he was trying to compare standard angle BDs with chipbreakers to high angle BDs without. Comparing BUs would be a whole other thing.

More generally, I think you're missing the point. This isn't a blind experiment with a neutral observer. He's trying to (broadly) quantify results that anyone who has learned the double iron has experienced in a very visceral way. You can nitpick about shaving width or planing speed, and yes, those things might shift the numbers around a little, but I don't think you can seriously claim that they would alter the basic shape of the graph. And I say that because I've experienced the results in my shop, as have countless others. Before I learned to set the chipbreaker, I got tearout; now I don't. My 45° and 50° double irons stop tearout better than than the 55° planes I've used, and they are easier to push. In fact, that is one way you know you've set the cap iron a little too close; if it feels like a 55° or higher plane, back it off just a hair. If you get tearout, you backed it off too much. The sweet spot is somewhere in between.

You're right, the pictures in the WC article leave something to be desired. As Dave explained, those aren't his. A bunch of people have posted good pics of the chipbreaker effect on other forums; for example, google the thread "chipbreaker success" on Woodnet and look at the last couple pages.

Here's a pretty unexciting pic, but it does make the point. Where the grain swirls, by the pinhole knots, the wood is changing color, and everything is nasty, an ideal recipe for tearout. But there is no tearout. You can zoom in as close as you want.

296799

it probably sounds like I am just being an idiot that will never allow himself to change but . . . at it’s worst 30% more effort and some reduction in durability (that means a lower percentage for many/ most some what less difficult applications) I might be willing to still go that rout for the trade off of the over all planing experience of the BU.

You're right, it does sound that way! :p But I don't think anyone is trying to convince you to sell your BU planes. The chipbreaker works; whether you want to use it is up to you. If you prefer BU planes, right on. No one cares. But at some point you have to decide if you are arguing, in the face of all the evidence, because you think you're right, or if you're arguing just because you like to argue.

I'd suggest you take the route Derek took, and actually spend some time trying to use the double iron properly. If you decide, as he did, that you still prefer your BU planes, then cool. But at least you'll be able to argue from experience.

Kees Heiden

09-15-2014, 3:26 AM

Two videos. The first is European maple (not as hard as rock maple). The second is jatoba. (I can only link one video and will post the second in the next post) Both are planed absolutely smooth, no chatter marks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Nq1sbOhMM

My testing rig on the lathe can't handle large forces. The sensors run out of their range and the carriers are suspended on leaf springs which start to act weird when the force is too large. I tested 5 and 10 mm wide samples and the results from the second were more or less exactly twice as large. I also compared a very slow speed (using the normal lead screw) and the speed used for all tests (using the thread cutting lead screw). Results were about the same. Kivimaa in 1950 wrote that the cutting speed has no effect on the force Fc. Walker and Goodchild did see some change, the force becomes less when cutting speed increases. I have no reason to believe this will be different for high angles versus capirons. My speed was 3 meter/min. That is 5 cm / sec. That's slow for a handplane. A handplane will be moved 5 to 10 times faster.

The downwards force Fn was measured at 0.5 kgf/6mm (I got that notation from Kato). A full width blade would be 8 times as wide (usually a bit narrower due to camber). That's 4 kg down wards force. Kato measured forces with different grain angles and found somewhat more downwards force when planing against the grain, but not magnitudes of difference. 4 kg is not much! And we're talking about a Hock blade which is thick, and a solid bedding on beech. People have used planes like that for ages and made some truly remarkable stuff, dimensioning all the wood by hand. A Stanley blade is thin and likes to flex. That's not ideal and can cause chatter and sound a bit like a tin toy at times. A wooden plane is not at all like that. If it chatters it is a defect, poor bedding or poor fit of the wedge. It sounds different too. I wonder how the new LV planes are like.

I think chatter is a function of both Fc and Fn. During my first research, comparing the tearout abilities of high angle planes and chipbreakers, I struggled on one piece of wallnut with my Stanley with a 15 degree back bevel. It chattered like crazy and I had to reduce the width of the testpiece. No such problems with the chipbreaker set close to the edge. That test really tested the limits of the Stanley plane. Te negative force Fn actually helps against chatter. It keeps the blade in the cut, while at the high angle the wood tries to expell the blade. The latter combined with the higher Fc leads to chatter.

My artice describes two tests. In the second part I used a 45 degree bedding angle with a 15 degree back bevel to simulate the 60 degree cutting angle. That is an edge configuration close to what you find on a BU plane with a high cutting angle. You will see at 0 meters (sharp blade) that the difference with the first test is not much. The Fn is now (slightly) positive, Fc is a little higher, but within the accuracy limits of the measuring jig. I had also changed the setup, made things more rigid. Of course, I should have repeated the first part of the experiment, but hey, I am only human and I had to paint the house and replace the windows from the garden shed.

BTW, the 30% increase in Fc is the minimum. I skewed everything in favor of the high angle plane. The equavalency tests were done with a Stanley plane with a 44 degree bevel on the chipbreaker, here I compare them with a 50 degree bevel which generates higher forces. In that equivalency test I concluded that a 60 degree plane is equevalent to a chipbreaker at 0.1 to 0.2 mm from the edge (depending on the wood). In the new test I compare with 0.1 mm only. So depending on the type of wood I expect the difference to be more rather then less.

BTW 2. You think a negative Fn is bad, I think it is good. In a 45 degree plane the wood is cut and the shaving is pushed out. In a 60 degree plane there is no upwards lifting of the shaving, the wood is pushed forward and fails in compression. That is the first step towards scraping and could explain the less prestine surface in some woods reported by Warren and David.

BTW 3. You're the first with real critique. Thanks for that. Critique is good and helpfull. I don't claim that my investigation is complete. There is so much more to test and only so little time. These tests are time consuming and I should have given up on my day job. Anyone wants to sponsor me?

Kees Heiden

09-15-2014, 3:26 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pImUe5Spro8

Adam Cruea

09-15-2014, 7:23 AM

I can't speak for Kees, but my impression is he was trying to compare standard angle BDs with chipbreakers to high angle BDs without. Comparing BUs would be a whole other thing.

More generally, I think you're missing the point. This isn't a blind experiment with a neutral observer. He's trying to (broadly) quantify results that anyone who has learned the double iron has experienced in a very visceral way. You can nitpick about shaving width or planing speed, and yes, those things might shift the numbers around a little, but I don't think you can seriously claim that they would alter the basic shape of the graph. And I say that because I've experienced the results in my shop, as have countless others. Before I learned to set the chipbreaker, I got tearout; now I don't. My 45° and 50° double irons stop tearout better than than the 55° planes I've used, and they are easier to push. In fact, that is one way you know you've set the cap iron a little too close; if it feels like a 55° or higher plane, back it off just a hair. If you get tearout, you backed it off too much. The sweet spot is somewhere in between.

I tried and tried and tried to stop tearout with my 45* frogs and couldn't, no matter how close I set the breaker. With a 50*, I notice that it's gone, as long as the blade is nice and sharp (it also leaves a super-smooth surface).

I have no idea how anyone can do it with the old-style Stanley breakers. Every time I try, I get wood shavings shoved up under it. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I don't have the skillz necessary to mate old-style breakers with blades that well. :(

Kees Heiden

09-15-2014, 8:45 AM

Steve Voigt

09-15-2014, 9:21 AM

I tried and tried and tried to stop tearout with my 45* frogs and couldn't, no matter how close I set the breaker. With a 50*, I notice that it's gone, as long as the blade is nice and sharp (it also leaves a super-smooth surface).

I have no idea how anyone can do it with the old-style Stanley breakers. Every time I try, I get wood shavings shoved up under it. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I don't have the skillz necessary to mate old-style breakers with blades that well. :(

Kees' advice in the previous post is good. FWIW, I prefer the aftermarket blades/breakers, like Hock. I know some people really like the originals, but I like the thicker blade. And the Hock CBs work well if you put a slight secondary bevel on them.

Adam Cruea

09-15-2014, 10:36 AM

Adam, I think also that mating the two is the most difficult bit of using the capiron. There are several possible problems in your plane. When you peek between the two with a back light, do you see any gaps?

Or maybe the very edge of your chipbreaker doesn't come down like a real edge, the very last bit of the edge of the chipbreaker should touch the blade, not a part a little way up. You prepare the chipbreaker on a hard flat stone or fine sandpaper on glas, but the top end of the chipbreaker should drop down a bit during that operation, like in this picture.
296804

Or maybe the capiron lost its spring over the years? You can bend it in a vice to get some spring back. Also turning the levercap screw a quarter of a turn tighter can increase the pressure to prevent shavings from entering under the chipbreaker.

I'd be guessing it is just that the cap iron has lost the spring as when I generally mate old breaker with old iron, I find they're flat together (as in, the screw only holds the cap iron in place. . .it doesn't "squish" anything). I don't have any issues with the newer caps/irons (LV/LN), so I'm pretty sure it's just the old breakers are unsprung.

Of course, I could just tell my wife that the old blade/breakers need replaced in my #2 and 603. :)

David Weaver

09-15-2014, 10:45 AM

Put the breaker in a vise and bend it. They're stamped and unhardened and you can get away with a lot.

jamie shard

09-15-2014, 11:07 AM

Adam, please try this. You're the perfect test case. See if you can tune up the chip breaker, set it close, and get no tear out. Almost everyone else has a stake in the argument, your results (with pictures!) would mean a lot.

David Weaver

09-15-2014, 11:12 AM

At the same time, anyone else who has "no stake" could weigh in how well they've been able to use a cap iron (vs. not using it). Adam sort of has a negative bias already, but his issue with what is apparently a beat chipbreaker setup is a realistic problem that other people buying used or used up tools may find.

As far as money goes, I have no stake. I've never been paid to write an article or test a tool with or without a cap iron based on the cap iron itself. I've never been paid money to test a tool at all (I have been allowed to keep a few low-value tools, none of them planes and none are on the market).

But I'd welcome input from any of the users out there who just read my article or the article kees wrote and then tried it out. If they found the experiment a failure or otherwise.

Jim Koepke

09-15-2014, 1:01 PM

Now if someone could only make a chip breaker for bevel up planes...

jtk

David Weaver

09-15-2014, 1:15 PM

I wonder if anyone is ever going to come up with a fine-threaded robust setup that will allow the cap iron to be adjusted on the fly. This is, of course, not something that's necessary, and would be costly to make, but it would be kind of nifty.

Maybe the depth of wear on the leading edge (since the back of the iron wears faster when the cap iron is set close) would create a gap - who knows...I've never seen the depth of that wear stated in thousandths (bet some quick research could be made to figure it out, though).

In kees' article, it's clear to see that the traveling chip is creating wear grooves in the cap iron set and on the 60 degree set, it's easy to see that the chip is deflected early and the wear doesn't travel as far up the iron. In practice, not something to be concerned about (that wear), either, which exemplifies the danger of coming to a conclusion over pictures.

Kees Heiden

09-15-2014, 1:27 PM

I wouldn't try to read too much from those pictures. I still find it terribly difficult to get decent pics with that microscope. I was glad that the wearbevel is clear to see.

David Weaver

09-15-2014, 1:35 PM

I agree on picture difficulty. A couple of months ago, I took the picture of razor bevels expecting to see natural stones showing almost mark-free edges from the translucent and some of the other natural stones that I have - like these do:

http://www.tzknives.com/razorbevels.html

When i took pictures, I could see pronounced scratches on everything except razor bevels that had been hit with chromium oxide graded powder (strangely, the shaving quality of the edges was very similar, much more so than the pictures would suggest).

Pictures of such small things are a good thing to look at, and then see if you can draw a conclusion in practice. Bad things happen when we look at those pictures and make definitive statements without anything else.

(I think the difference between my microscope at 200x and zowadas is that the orientation of light in my setup facilitated the reflection of the scratches, whereas shallow scratches seem to be exempt in tim's setup.

Jim Koepke

09-15-2014, 1:38 PM

Maybe the depth of wear on the leading edge (since the back of the iron wears faster when the cap iron is set close)

Isn't that just the 'lazy man's' way of getting his iron 'ruler tricked'?:cool:

jtk

Kees Heiden

09-15-2014, 1:49 PM

Mine is 470x. Very difficult to focus too. I think the scrathces you see are from my 8000 stone.
BTW, yu're looking at the bevel side. It is the clearance wear bevel, the wear bevel at the clearance side. The other side has a much longer and shallower wearbevel, which looks very smooth.

Warren Mickley

09-15-2014, 1:55 PM

Hang in there Adam. There is a reason that hardly anyone used the double iron five years ago. It takes attention to detail just to get started and lots of experience to know how to use it in individual situations for the best results. For instance, what is the best configuration for planing quarter sawn ash with a mild curl with .003 inch shavings? Even if you've had success with some woods it can be different with others. Derek calls it unreliable and yes, it was unreliable for me when I was a beginner also.

At times some people wanted me to give measurements of settings so they could try it themselves and report back that it did not work. In the past I have compared the double iron to using hot hide glue, pole vaulting, and playing the violin. Each of these activities can be frustrating at the beginning but worthwhile when experience kicks in. So keep at it- well worth the effort.

David Weaver

09-15-2014, 3:45 PM

Adam Cruea

09-16-2014, 11:37 AM

Put the breaker in a vise and bend it. They're stamped and unhardened and you can get away with a lot.

Stupid question. . .do you slightly bow the entire thing or just the end toward the sharp end of the iron?

I should say that while I don't have stake, I'm very in the camp of "chipbreakers stop tearout" because I am able to minimize tear out with older chipbreakers (specifically, my 603 works wonderfully with minimal tearout). It's just that I'd like my old irons and chipbreakers to be like my new LN 4 1/2; only tearing out in the extreme gnarliest of grain.

Hang in there Adam. There is a reason that hardly anyone used the double iron five years ago. It takes attention to detail just to get started and lots of experience to know how to use it in individual situations for the best results. For instance, what is the best configuration for planing quarter sawn ash with a mild curl with .003 inch shavings? Even if you've had success with some woods it can be different with others. Derek calls it unreliable and yes, it was unreliable for me when I was a beginner also.

At times some people wanted me to give measurements of settings so they could try it themselves and report back that it did not work. In the past I have compared the double iron to using hot hide glue, pole vaulting, and playing the violin. Each of these activities can be frustrating at the beginning but worthwhile when experience kicks in. So keep at it- well worth the effort.

Yeah, I understand. While I'm not experienced, I'm smart enough to get the hang of things quickly. I can't dispute the double iron helps with all this as I've torn out with a bevel-up plane just like a bevel-down. The only difference is by moving a chip-breaker closer to the edge, I can tone down tear-out with a double iron whereas bevel-up is just too fickle for me. So, hopefully with a few more years, all this will be second-nature (or close). :)

I wouldn't call it unreliable at all; you're working with an organic medium that can change and will not be perfect through-and-through. When I made my hickory workbench, I seriously contemplated giving up woodworking because it was extremely tough to do, but I decided my next project would be on a different wood. As you can tell from my history and posting on here, I'm glad I didn't give up. Hickory is just a pain to work. White oak is a pleasure for me, and I'm learning soft maple is absolutely gorgeous. I can't wait until I get to walnut, cherry, and some of the other stuff.

And I definitely get your comparison to playing an instrument. I played bassoon, clarinet, bass guitar, and saxophone. I'm glad I stuck with those even when they were insanely difficult and I regret giving up playing music. It's an indescribable feeling being able to do it. :)

David Weaver

09-16-2014, 11:57 AM

Stupid question. . .do you slightly bow the entire thing or just the end toward the sharp end of the iron?

I should say that while I don't have stake, I'm very in the camp of "chipbreakers stop tearout" because I am able to minimize tear out with older chipbreakers (specifically, my 603 works wonderfully with minimal tearout). It's just that I'd like my old irons and chipbreakers to be like my new LN 4 1/2; only tearing out in the extreme gnarliest of grain.

I have aluminum soft jaws on my bench vise (and I have a large bench vise). I will either take the cap iron hump and put it in the soft jaws and then bend the rest of it hoping that the point that flexes is right behind the hump, or put the flat part of the cap iron in the vise with just the hump sticking out and put a pine block on the hump and hammer it. It only usually has to move a little.

And FWIW, I have gotten cocobolo from time to time between a cap iron and an iron, but in the last couple of cocobolo planes, it didn't occur. When you go to the outer reaches, some of those woods have such strong shavings that they'll get under a cap iron. I wouldn't want to dimension them with a high angle plane, either - it's really a matter of them not being that nice to work by hand in any quantity, other than maybe final smoothing. Hickory and such other things you like to torture yourself with shouldn't be a problem, though -cocobolo is almost twice as hard in the late wood.

Adam Cruea

09-16-2014, 12:02 PM

I have aluminum soft jaws on my bench vise (and I have a large bench vise). I will either take the cap iron hump and put it in the soft jaws and then bend the rest of it hoping that the point that flexes is right behind the hump, or put the flat part of the cap iron in the vise with just the hump sticking out and put a pine block on the hump and hammer it. It only usually has to move a little.

And FWIW, I have gotten cocobolo from time to time between a cap iron and an iron, but in the last couple of cocobolo planes, it didn't occur. When you go to the outer reaches, some of those woods have such strong shavings that they'll get under a cap iron. I wouldn't want to dimension them with a high angle plane, either - it's really a matter of them not being that nice to work by hand in any quantity, other than maybe final smoothing. Hickory and such other things you like to torture yourself with shouldn't be a problem, though -cocobolo is almost twice as hard in the late wood.

Awesome! I will definitely do that then and see if it provides any benefit.

And what can I say? I'm a masochist. :P I actually like steep, steep learning curves and having to solve problems.

Sam Cui

09-16-2014, 12:40 PM

This?
http://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/goldenberg-smoother-t82202.html

David Weaver

09-16-2014, 12:49 PM

That's a really excellent link. Thanks Sam!

Proof that if you ever think you have a smart idea, even if a little rube goldberg, you'll probably find that someone else already tried it out.

Sam Cui

09-16-2014, 12:59 PM

My pleasure. Being on two forums is never a bad thing ;)

Pat Barry

09-16-2014, 3:51 PM

Hi Kees, I'm still reading and absorbing but there is an awesome amount of data presented in your paper. Did you by chance use a traditional DOE technique to set up and analyze your experiments? If so, I sure would like to see that type of data analysis.

Chris Fournier

09-16-2014, 9:22 PM

Hmm, I don't get it. I bought good planes, learned how to sharpen them well and then played with the few variables that they offered to get a tearout free cut in any wood and I moved on to using a plane to help me make a project. I did read a few books, none of which have been referred to in these "white paper" handplane threads but most from the 20th century that described all of these seemingly "newfound" abilities of handplanes that are now being attributed to current personalities and the "invention" of a millenia plus old hand tool the handplane.

A handplane is a simple, longstanding tool that has not held a mystery for centuries. It is very effective at planing wood and it is very easy to get one to do so very well. Use your plane to make a project, pick any wood and get on with it. In your shop. At your bench.

Winton Applegate

09-17-2014, 1:38 AM

I hope you’re all happy.

The blade is one I had hanging on the wall. A fourteen or fifteen year old LN A2 BD. I did not touch it up. It is sharpened to a secondary bevel of 35° (that is only 10° clearance; I had one marked 30° but figured why not go all the way) no real camber (a finish blade) corners relieved. There was some slight indication it had been down a board but was still very, very sharp.

First I set the chip breaker back more than one millimeter. I found the small board I had had trouble with tear out more than a decade ago. It is a bit different purple heart than my work bench is made of. You can see the difference in the photos. It has no real figure to it; quite plane looking actually. It has a good spot of reversing grain in it. I planed both directions trying to get as against the grain as I could. Didn’t seem to mater much which way I planed but as shown I got the most tear out by a small margin.

I then set the chip breaker on the blade as close as I could before going to my push it in the wood and push the chip breaker down to the surface of the wood technique. I was very careful but as usual the blade suddenly slipped forward and over shot the edge a bit. Luckily it didn’t go all the way off but just past but was still on the flat underside of the chip braker’s end. Whew. I maneuvered it back and pushed the edge of the blade into the end grain of a 2x4 cut off I had, the fresh cut end not the grit and dirt end, and then slid the chip breaker down to the wood and locked the chip breaker screw. I tested it by pressing into some thickish writing paper; it didn't’ cut through, I then pressed it into some typing/printer paper, it did cut through in places so . . . about 3 thou. of an inch chip breaker setting.

The blade would not cut easily, the throat jammed badly soon after. When I pulled the blade set out of the plane there was wood fibers between the chip breaker and the blade. Thin narrow ~3mm ribbons of curl.
Hmmmmm
I was sure I had fettled that chip breaker way back when I first got it. I cleaned it out. Re set it the same and tried again. Same exact deal.

I cleaned it out again and reassembled and tightened the screw on the pair. You can see in the photo that it is well fettled / no light.

I set the chip breaker by eye twice and ‘spearmented with the cut. I got good cuts. I then advanced the depth of cut for a heavyish cut. You can see in the photo of the three kinds of curls.
I took a few passes over the whole board overlapping strokes until I had taken a good layer off the whole face.
Tear out was about all gone. I backed off the blade out of the cut, of course feeding it forward to take up the back lash in the adjuster linkage and fed it forward for a medium cut (remember this is a full on finish blade so the initial heavy cut wasn’t all that rank. Took some passes that got rid of the last bit of tear out.
Feeling the surface with my fingers I could feel some plane tracks. Backed off and forward a touch again and took the whisper cuts off that you see in the third pile counter clockwise in the photo of the curls.
Veolie !
Done.
I checked; no shavings under the chip breaker.

In the last photos of the surface anything that looks like tear out is just the end fibers of a change in the grain but it is all smooth and nice. No chatter either.
What can I say ? Must be that 15,000 stone that I got in the last year or so.
:o
:p
Just kidding.
I do give some credit to my sharpening jig and flat facets. back when I was having trouble with tear out I was using the older style silver clamp on the side sharpening jig with the narrow roller that is better suited to chisels . I don’t know if that had any negative effect. I was not setting the chip breaker as close as this. Though I may have set it too close and had the jamming effect I mentioned above then backed off too much.

See the photo with the blade flat on the bench over the dog hole with the round white disk of wax . I measured the chip breaker setting after the job was done. That is a .4mm feeler gauge. (over 15 thou. of an inch) being held vertically by the disc of wax so I could take a photo of the feeler gauge in place.

Probably luck.
:p
Or maybe this all worked so splendidly because the wood is so much more dry and cured now.
ha, ha, ha.
:p

Now can I go back to my bevel up ?

Winton Applegate

09-17-2014, 1:42 AM

I wanted to post one more photo but the machine wouldn't let me so here it is now.

This is my favorite chip beaker screw driver. It is a disk of steel with a progressively thicker edge so that it can fit a variety of flat blade screws. I still haven not found a screw driver that fits the screws on my planes as well (some of the slots are narrower and I hate how the narrow drivers then ding up the wider screw slots so I use this). Works well for me.

You can get it at a hardware store or auto supply where the key rings are displayed.

Kees Heiden

09-17-2014, 3:11 AM

Now can I go back to my bevel up ?

Of course you can! With all the blessings I can think of. Thanks for trying.

David Weaver

09-17-2014, 8:12 AM

I wanted to post one more photo but the machine wouldn't let me so here it is now.

This is my favorite chip beaker screw driver

Use the lever cap winton!! You know you want to. (I wonder if it fits. I does on stanley planes).

Must be that 15,000 stone that I got in the last year or so.

You could do it with a washita, the absolute sharpness isn't the key in this case. And trust me, my washita sharpened irons are not as sharp as your 15k pro irons. As much as I like the washita, it can't hang if absolute sharpness is most important.

Now can I go back to my bevel up ?

Of course. If you use the cap iron, the set will become a 15 second routine, though, and the bit about overrunning the edge will go away (it just stops happening). Boards like the one you've shown can be sneaky difficult because those little bits of tearout on the near side of each of the swirls probably have some part that is almost the same angle as the iron itself, or a little shallower, and that is the toughest situation to get all of the fuzz out (as your description of the surface goes).

What does the iron at the top of that plane say? Does it say "Lie Nielsen", or is it blank? If it's blank, it's probably W1 steel.

Steve Voigt

09-17-2014, 9:33 AM

I hope you’re all happy.

I am! :) Congrats on your initial success, and kudos for giving it a try.

Dave Anderson NH

09-17-2014, 10:41 AM

Personal attacks will not be tolerated and will gain the next person posting one of them a 5 day revocation of posting privileges. I really hate having to delete messages and edit threads because of rude behavior. Just try me.

Pat Barry

09-17-2014, 1:10 PM

This is my favorite chip beaker screw driver. It is a disk of steel with a progressively thicker edge so that it can fit a variety of flat blade screws. I still haven not found a screw driver that fits the screws on my planes as well (some of the slots are narrower and I hate how the narrow drivers then ding up the wider screw slots so I use this). Works well for me..
Wow Winton, you sure crumble quickly. You have already chosen a favorite chip breaker screw driver? What next? I suppose you and David and Kees will start a little club and meet every other odd Saturday morning to collaborate on proper chip breaker grind methods and angles. LOL

David Weaver

09-17-2014, 1:13 PM

Let's call this meeting to order...
Use the stock cap iron at the stock setting
Set it where it's at a range where it will just be affecting/straightening the largest chip you'll take with the particular plane (learn by experience)
Set it forward from there only if there are problems (rare)
Meeting adjourned, who brought the beer? who has the keys to wintons ferrari?

Kees Heiden

09-17-2014, 1:17 PM

I prefer Belgium beer, so lets meet in Antwerp on the Keiserlei.

Chris Fournier

09-17-2014, 8:47 PM

Take your iron. Sharpen it properly. Properly? This means an intersection of two planes, the back, the bevel -crisp, so much so that it does not reflect light under a loupe. Stick it in about any decent plane and get results that satisfy. Bevel up? Best results keep the mouth tight. Bevel down? Adjust the frog and the chip breaker to suit. Two operations to keep the mouth tight instead of one.

A few more operations than required to keep my mouth tight!

Simple stuff. If it's sharp it will yield great results. Period. Tricky wood? Alternating figure? No big deal. You've got a sharp plane and now you have to learn how to use it on an organic substrate that plays by its own rules. Never met a piece of wood that I could not tame with a sharp plane and an intelligent touch.

I stand on the shoulders of giants.

Warren Mickley

09-18-2014, 9:53 AM

The adjustable cap Goldenberg plane has surfaced on the Woodnet forum, I think three times over the last 6 or 8 years. I believe there was a 19th century American plane where one could likewise adjust the cap iron without taking the plane apart. As a long time user I have a feel for where the cap iron should be and don't change the setting more than one time in a hundred maybe not one in a thousand. It might be helpful for a beginner in order to find the sweet spot. Or for a hobbyist who is trying out new woods every month just for fun.

Goldenberg seems to have been a fine maker. I think the 19th century French tools are pretty interesting, but here in Pennsylvania we don't often see them.

David Weaver

09-18-2014, 10:03 AM

It might be helpful for a beginner in order to find the sweet spot.

I figured it might be something marketable because the bulk of the money is probably spent by beginners. I reset a cap iron before a plane needed to be sharpened again last night. It's the second time I did that this year. I wouldn't be in the target market for their plane, but gadgets do seem to sell (set screws near in plane mouths, etc).

I can't imagine it would be very cheap to make a matching iron and cap iron with a device like that, though, especially one that beginners (who pick up a bunch of planes and expect things like smooth adjusters without breaking in a plane or getting used to it) would find tolerable.

Winton Applegate

09-19-2014, 12:25 AM

Use the lever cap winton!! You know you want to. (I wonder if it fits. I does on stanley planes).

Hey, you brought back a memory. I seem to remember doing that in High School shop class. Or I knew that from some where. Probably high school.

Yes it fits, see photo, but I would NEVER even consider doing that to the bronze CI. Nails on a chalk board for me. I couldn’t stand the dings it would put in the CI. Call me a candy a$$.

Thanks for reminding me though.

What does the iron at the top of that plane say? Does it say "Lie Nielsen", or is it blank? If it's blank, it's probably W1 steel.

Hey . . . . ! I went and looked for the LN stamping on the blades. The 35° that I used in the “Learning Episode” has the stamp
but
the 30° does not. Hmmmmmm

and finally . . . at the time of my previous post I forgot to check sharpness preservation of the double iron in this LE (Learning Episode) so I checked that tonight also.

See the photo of the edge with the white stuff on it. The way I test the blade for sharp at the bench is I lay the flat back of the blade on my finger nail and use it as if testing on end grain for sharpness. If it BITES with the blade flat it is fully sharp (or I didn’t get all the wire edge off Ha, Ha, Ha,). If I have to tilt the blade up a degree to get it to bite I am still good. If it is scraping / shaving curls off at that point it is getting dull. If it is sliding and not doing any thing it is past done and needs a full sharpening.

Where you see white stuff along the edge it was scraping / shaving curls off with the blade tilted up a degree (roughly). Where there is no white stuff it was biting and so much sharper there toward the corners of the blade.

So it took a good hit in the sharp department. I need to go back and get the tearout again and then do the BU thing and see how all that goes just for comparison.

And so ends another episode of “ As The Winton Turns”.

Winton Applegate

09-19-2014, 1:14 AM

parameter (or even less)

A few more operations than required to keep my mouth tight!
See now that is what I always tell these guys . . . it is all in how you hold your mouth while working. The rest just falls into place from there.

Simple stuff. If it's sharp it will yield great results. Period. Tricky wood? Alternating figure? No big deal. You've got a sharp plane and now you have to learn how to use it on an organic substrate that plays by its own rules. Never met a piece of wood that I could not tame with a sharp plane and an intelligent touch.

W E L L L L L . . . .
I think we rather proved the opposite here. I mean the blade sharpness was seriously deadly but because the chip breaker was back to ~ 1mm it was tearing out big time.

Throat / mouth no I think I have put that one to bed. With a sharp blade on BU with the right geometry the throat opening makes no difference.

And throat opening on Bevel Down planes ? . . . yah . . . like . . . who still uses those ?
Oops I fell into my old shtick there
:o
sorry, sorry
:p

I stand on the shoulders of giants.

You totally said it there. I agree. I think that every time I walk into my shop and look at the photos on the wall of my teachers (through magazines, books and videos).

But none of them told me about this sweet spot CB thing.

Hey David I got to get a photo of you for the teacher wall.
;)
(PS: I guess I need photos of more than just D. W. on this CB thing) (I got to get a bigger wall)

David Weaver

09-19-2014, 8:34 AM

Winton, you said it pretty straight up about the sharpness. With the cap iron set right (or with a high angle plane), if the geometry is there, the chip will be fine and there will be no tearout. Sharpness after that is about surface brightness.

One of the reasons that I've been using only a washita is because the double iron allows it. A settled in washita that gets stropped on bare leather still shaves hair, but it definitely does not have the initial whiz bang that the shapton 15k pro does. It's more even keel from start to lack of clearance.

The thicker the chip, the more important the geometry issue is.

Sean Hughto had my school picture in another thread, I think it may have gotten removed. If he didn't, you can post it on your wall. I'm certainly no "teacher"! That sounds like a responsibility!

David Weaver

09-19-2014, 8:55 AM

Hey, you brought back a memory. I seem to remember doing that in High School shop class. Or I knew that from some where. Probably high school.

Yes it fits, see photo, but I would NEVER even consider doing that to the bronze CI. Nails on a chalk board for me. I couldn’t stand the dings it would put in the CI. Call me a candy a$$.

Thanks for reminding me though.

Hey . . . . ! I went and looked for the LN stamping on the blades. The 35° that I used in the “Learning Episode” has the stamp
but
the 30° does not. Hmmmmmm

and finally . . . at the time of my previous post I forgot to check sharpness preservation of the double iron in this LE (Learning Episode) so I checked that tonight also.

See the photo of the edge with the white stuff on it. The way I test the blade for sharp at the bench is I lay the flat back of the blade on my finger nail and use it as if testing on end grain for sharpness. If it BITES with the blade flat it is fully sharp (or I didn’t get all the wire edge off Ha, Ha, Ha,). If I have to tilt the blade up a degree to get it to bite I am still good. If it is scraping / shaving curls off at that point it is getting dull. If it is sliding and not doing any thing it is past done and needs a full sharpening.

Where you see white stuff along the edge it was scraping / shaving curls off with the blade tilted up a degree (roughly). Where there is no white stuff it was biting and so much sharper there toward the corners of the blade.

So it took a good hit in the sharp department. I need to go back and get the tearout again and then do the BU thing and see how all that goes just for comparison.

And so ends another episode of “ As The Winton Turns”.

Couple of bullet point thoughts..
* the flat side of the iron wears faster with a cap iron in a good position (I guess this should be no surprise, the chip is being held against the iron and abrades it more). The bevel side, I don't know that there's any difference, I can't remember from the kawai paper. Guess what I'm saying is that your test is bound to show up the cap iron used iron because it's testing the face that now wears faster, though in use I haven't seen any real consequence to that wear, limited clearance is still what sends me back to the stones.
*W1 irons from LN wore about twice as fast as their A2. The steel is less wear resistant, and they were probably softer, too. IIRC, they had a bear of a time heat treating them
(I hope nobody ever breaks out the end of their lever cap on my suggestion to use it as a screwdriver. I wouldn't do it the first time I took the cap iron off of a flea market plane, but every time after that I do.

Sean Hughto

09-19-2014, 10:11 AM

Sean Hughto had my school picture in another thread, I think it may have gotten removed. If he didn't, you can post it on your wall. I'm certainly no "teacher"! That sounds like a responsibility!

Yeah, it got removed, but I don't think it was cause a yer puss, so here it is again:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3921/15263697565_eeabd0c8a0_b.jpg

Don McConnell

09-19-2014, 2:06 PM

David Weaver

09-19-2014, 2:11 PM

It does appear to do more to simulate a bevel up type orientation of an iron, where the steeper angle does imply a greater included angle.

It would be interesting to see test numbers with the iron as don is suggesting.

(in my experience with single and double iron wooden and infill planes, I don't think the conclusion will be much different, but it would be interesting - some of the numbers might be closer together.)

Kees Heiden

09-19-2014, 3:14 PM

While I generally try to stay out of threads in which it would seem I have a vested interest in the outcome, I'm finally feeling compelled to comment at least briefly on Kees' research. Frankly, I've been hoping someone else would point this out and I could stay out of it. But that doesn't seem to be happening, so, here goes.

There are a handful of difficulties/issues which are inherent in this kind of research, and I'm not completely sanguine that those have been successfully addressed in this research. And I'm not entirely sure how I would address them. But I'll forego that discussion in order to get to the basic flaw I see in the design of this research. As I read the article, Kees, your basic preparation of the iron was to grind at 25º and hone at 30º, resulting in an included angle of 30º for the iron when used at common pitch and with a cap iron. It then seems that you simulated the higher angles of attack by adding a back bevel of 5º, 10º and 15º, which would leave included angles of 35º, 40º and 45º. If this is the case, it is not analogous to an iron prepared with a 30º included angle and bedded at 50º, 55º and 60º, respectively, as would have been done with the 18th century single iron planes with higher bed angles. In other words, you've introduced a variable (actually two, with the subsequent difference in relief, or clearance, angles), which you have not controlled for at all. I believe this brings into question all of the comparative data you've generated, at least as it relates to your primary thesis.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

There are two parts. In the first part I have measured the forces with a sharp blade. In this part I have sharpened the blade at 30 degrees and put a tiny backbevel on the face side, to be absolutely sure that I removed all of the wear plus the wire edge on the face. That backbevel is about 0.5 degree. To be able to measure the several cutting angles I made the mesuring jig adjustable. The blade holding thingy can be rotated. So your concern doesn't apply to the first part.

The second part of my article contains the wear data over a 100 meter planing distance. Here I had to use a different approach, because I was doing all the planing with the pictured wooden plane, and only use the test jig to measure the forces. In this case I had to use that 45 degree plane, so I used a backbevel of 15 degrees to simulate the 60 degree plane. This now had a clearance angle of 15 degrees, much like one of the modern bevel down planes.

When you look at the 0 meter point of that second test, you will see that the values are not too different from the values in the first part. I don't want to compare these absolute values of the two tests too much, because I made several structural changes in the apparatus in the mean time, But the relative difference between the high angle data and the capiron data at 0 m is also comparable to the values from the first test. This was confirmed in a test I did in the first version of the apparatus, but did not publish. The amount of clearance doesn't really make much differrence to the forces involved.

So yes you have a point there, regarding the wear data and the 18th century plane. We could argue about that. 15 degree clearance angle is still a lot, and at least I tested all three configurations with the same clearance angle, so the different forces from the high cutting angle surely do something to the wearbevel that isn't done in both of the 45 degree configurations. But I didn't test it with 30 degree clearance,that's right. Seems like I've got work to do, give me a couple of weeks though, I first must make a 60 degree plane.

Gary Muto

09-19-2014, 6:12 PM

....I think chatter is a function of both Fc and Fn. During my first research, comparing the tearout abilities of high angle planes and chipbreakers, I struggled on one piece of wallnut with my Stanley with a 15 degree back bevel. It chattered like crazy and I had to reduce the width of the testpiece. No such problems with the chipbreaker set close to the edge. That test really tested the limits of the Stanley plane. Te negative force Fn actually helps against chatter. It keeps the blade in the cut, while at the high angle the wood tries to expell the blade. The latter combined with the higher Fc leads to chatter......

Kees,

Nice work and an incredible amount of effort. I'm not able to take the time to get through this whole thread, at least yet but it is very interesting.

I also do not have much to add to the discussion other than some bacic mechanics. this might be a little dry:

I think the chatter is induced by vibration or more specifically resonance. Resonance is vibration at the natural frequency. Everyting deflects under load and has a natural or resonant frequency. The natural frequency is not a result of input but of the properties of the object in vibration. In this case it is hte blade and chip breaker that is below the fixed point (lever cap). It's natural frequency is purely a function of the stiffness and mass of the two components of the system. The exact equation is
f = SQRT(K/M) F is frequency, K is stiffness or spring rate, M is Mass.

I don't think the forces would change the chatter any more than plucking a guitar string harder or softer would change the note (frequency). The properties of the wood being cut may have an effect but I doubt it. The wood properties might change the forces and perhaps the amplitude of the chatter.... I think.

ian maybury

09-19-2014, 6:43 PM

I guess Kees that technically there's actually two variables involved in that situation - first the included angle of the cutting edge, and then the clearance angle. I've seen the view expressed that increasing the included angle can make quite a difference, but have no idea if that stands up. The view also gets expressed at times that reducing the clearance angle as on a BU increases the rate of wear of the edge, but ditto.

It's sometimes informative to watch actions when trying to figure out how somebody is thinking. The new custom planes by Lee Valley (presuming they peform as might be expected) are interesting in that regard. Their bodies retain many of the features of BU planes. The iron which is still quite thick seems quite a bit thinner than on a BU (couldn't find a number), and is mounted BD, and on a frog which delivers bed angles of 40 deg and above - which should ease sharpening and especially cambering. It delivers marginally reduced clearance honed at 30 deg at the mainstream 40 deg frog angle (10 deg vs 12 deg on a BU) - which might suggest that it's not seen as a significant issue.

The addition of a cap iron with a close setting (1/64in) recommended for use on tear out prone woods tends to suggest that the company sees benefit in this. Against that they seem (unless i'm misreading the instructions) to suggest running with no cap iron for other work - possibly because it makes heavier cuts hard work? This feature could make for a very free cutting plane on heavy cuts judging by the way a scrub performs - and gives the option to run high pitch angles as well/as an alternative.

This tends to validate the close set cap iron line of thought, but for situation specific use as the guys here have been saying. The jury is perhaps still out as to whether this set up is regarded as delivering any improvement over an appropriately sharpened BU - in that the design changes could be targeting ease of cambering and sharpening as much as anything. In that the current thick BU blades do need quite a lot of metal removed in certain sharpening situations - e.g. regrinding the primary bevel, putting on larger amounts of camber etc

Another benefit is a conveniently set mouth opening compared to a bedrock.

Either way it look like they have done quite a job of eliminating most of the perceived disadvantages of the BU design in the eyes of BD afficionados, while retaining many of its benefits and perhaps more to the point enhancing their uniqueness...

Kees Heiden

09-20-2014, 3:28 AM

Kees,

Nice work and an incredible amount of effort. I'm not able to take the time to get through this whole thread, at least yet but it is very interesting.

I also do not have much to add to the discussion other than some bacic mechanics. this might be a little dry:

I think the chatter is induced by vibration or more specifically resonance. Resonance is vibration at the natural frequency. Everyting deflects under load and has a natural or resonant frequency. The natural frequency is not a result of input but of the properties of the object in vibration. In this case it is hte blade and chip breaker that is below the fixed point (lever cap). It's natural frequency is purely a function of the stiffness and mass of the two components of the system. The exact equation is
f = SQRT(K/M) F is frequency, K is stiffness or spring rate, M is Mass.

I don't think the forces would change the chatter any more than plucking a guitar string harder or softer would change the note (frequency). The properties of the wood being cut may have an effect but I doubt it. The wood properties might change the forces and perhaps the amplitude of the chatter.... I think.

Hi Gary,

Thanks for your comment. Chatter has the habbit of being triggered somehow. It appears suddenly somewhere in the middle of a board. The Stanley plane isn't known as the most chatter resistant design ever made. Especially with the thin original blades you can have some trouble now and then.

In the situation I wrote about, I tested the Stanley plane on a piece of curly wallnut. 45 degree to 55 degree gave no chatter problems, and resulted in a smooth results. Likewise with the capiron settings of 0.3 to 0.1 mm from the edge, no problem at all, smooth surface. But the 60 degree cutting angle suddenly produced a remarkable amount of chatter. Because you write about resonance, would it be some kind of harmonic resonance where the cutting action excites a frequency which happens to be the same as the natural frequency of the plane blade? But why didn't the chatter happen at 55 degrees, which is the same blade, bedded the same way, only with a slightly different backbevel?

Then I ripped the board in half so it was 2cm wide, and the chatter went away. The same plane setup, the same wood, no chatter. Reducing the cutting width reduces the forces on the edge. These things sure get complicated!

BTW, the chatter had no influence on the tearout.

ian maybury

09-20-2014, 6:41 AM

Pardon my coming in again Kees, but one guess is that chatter could be down to the onset of failure/a different failure mode in the shaving at high pitch angles.

The horizontal/driving force causes a slicing action due to the blade sharpness. A 'diving' force results due to the blade's pitch angle. The reaction to this diving force lifts up the shaving - which also causes splitting ahead of the cutting edge if the wood is so inclined/the pitch is low enough. The blade face/pitch angle and the chip breaker geometry combine to bend and roll it upwards. Luckily (not really) this rolling action generates a reaction force - especially when the shaving collides with the chipbreaker, but there's presumably also friction between the shaving and the various surfaces. Which controls splitting by pushing the shaving back down into the surface.

Progressive blade wear/blunting messes with this balance by generating increased backwards and upwards acting forces - the precise direction these forces act in may depend heavily on what's happening at the cutting edge. (where the wear bevel forms, and possibly also dependent on how and where the wood is cleaving)

It's as you guys say likely that maintaining the right balance of these forces is necessary to retain enough Fn and a low enough driving force for comfortable handling, and at the same time to deliver a smoothly cut surface - with sharpening restoring the balance.

The bending of the shaving must entail compression to shorten the top surface and/or stretch stretch its bottom surface - don't know if bent wood ultimately fails in compression or tension. (concrete for example has minimal tensile strength, but lots of compressive strength, while steel is typically treated as being able to handle the same ultimate load/stress in both directions)

One possible mechanism for chatter is that at high angles of attack it might be that the shaving starts to peel off in good order, but that shortly afterwards it impacts the chipbreaker hard enough/is then bent tightly enough to fail. (could be an abrupt collapse in compression, or in tension) With the result that the blade (which was deflected back under the various forces) gets to spring forward. Only to start cutting normally again and for the cycle to repeat. The situation could be worsened if it happens that the natural frequency of the blade is matched by the frequency of this cycle - but resonance might not be necessary. A thicker/stiffer blade might sidestep at least some of the issue by being strong enough not to significantly deflect - or by having a natural frequency well away from that at which the failure cycle occurs. This would also see the downwards force applied by the chipbreaker alternately applied and released too - which would cause cyclical changes in how the wood cuts (it might cycle between splitting and not splitting), and would also feed back into a shuddering/cyclical speed changes in the movement forward of the plane. Which in turn...

Reduced pitch angles and/or thinner shavings would likely restore a steady state cutting action - because the forces and stresses (it's possible to bend a thin piece of material much more tightly than a thick one before reaching a stress level that will cause failure) resulting from the various bending and compressing actions might not get high enough to cause failure of the wood/shaving.

PS It'd be dead interesting to do some testing with chip breaker and non chipbreaker equipped blades of varying thickness/flexibility at varying pitch angles and cutting speeds - with a high speed camera. Could be that chatter is a lot about a change from a steady state cutting action to a dynamic one involving chip failure...

:) Just indulging by speculating….

george wilson

09-20-2014, 9:28 AM

I would not encourage using the cap iron for a screw driver. It is cast iron,and can chip. The plating can get damaged too. Certainly not recommended for a nice bronze cap iron.

I have an original special screwdriver for loosening the chip breaker. It has a wide,squat handle,and the blade is as wide as the chip breaker screw,but only about 3/4" long.

David Weaver

09-20-2014, 9:33 AM

For the poor, HD had (probably doesn't any longer) a large handle screwdriver with a wide blade, but it was literally only the screwdriver blade sticking out of the handle.

I don't know if they have it any more.

I do like to use the lever cap, though, I fit into the category of folks like david charlesworth was talking about who get jammed up using the ruler trick because I have to find the steel ruler that I'd use.

Winton Applegate

09-20-2014, 9:38 PM

(I hope nobody ever breaks out the end of their lever cap on my suggestion to use it as a screwdriver.
I don't know about the iron. My gut is that since the screw hardly needs any serious torque to bed the chip breaker screw that the iron would be OK to use as well.
Speaking strictly about the bonze LN now I would say . . .
No not much chance of that. Their bronze is high quality and bronze is pretty tough stuff. It would get itzy bitzy little dings on it (that is what pains me) but no reason not to use it if the dings don’t bother ones sensibilities.

See you might think I didn't spend much time with my BDs but this is ACTUALLY how crazy I got (see photos). I bought a second screw driver and ground the end off a bit to make for a thicker blade.

As I always like to point out on tools when I can : the WF on the handle means it was made here in town at Western Forge.

Then one day I picked up the disc screw driver and it was simple; I didn't have to keep track of two drivers.

You think keeping track of a ruler is tough (not really) well two identical screw drivers with different thickness blades . . . well . . . don't try this at home friends . . .

I AM A PROFESSIONAL

:)

Kees Heiden

09-21-2014, 2:58 AM

I didn't know the capiron screw waranted a special tool. That's an opportunity! Now I use whatever screwdriver is close at hand, as long as it isn't one of these tiny electrican screwdrivers.

Winton Applegate

09-21-2014, 12:21 PM

:cool: It is, in reality, a sinister communist anti commercialism plot to bring the American economy to its knees.
BU is dangerous. I use them in my lab under tightly controlled security to study world economics but the average crafts person should shun them. You have been warned.:eek:

tiny electrican screwdrivers.

Oh, those can be used as well just stick it side ways with the shaft in the slot.
But I do think you are right; there is a whole market there waiting to be filled or in layman's terms "tapped".
I'm thinking dial able, micrometer controlled, blade thickness dial with the optionally optional accessory USB data print out for forum discussion documentation verification.

Of course there will be a kit of tools to buy optionally optional to set up and tune the variable blade screw driver. And classes on how the pros set up the variable blade screw driver.

Heck, I'll buy one.

Derek Cohen

09-21-2014, 12:56 PM

I didn't know the capiron screw waranted a special tool. That's an opportunity! Now I use whatever screwdriver is close at hand, as long as it isn't one of these tiny electrican screwdrivers.

Oh ... I've a special screwdriver for lever caps. 18C ... :)

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Screwdrivers/Screwdriver1_zps359cfccc.jpg

Kees, has anyone suggested how wide the secondary bevel needs to be at the leading edge of the chip breaker? On a couple of planes, ones which did not perform well with LN chip breakers, the secondary bevel was "micro", that is, about 1mm wide. I had been treating the chip breaker as I would a plane blade. I had a re-think about this recently, and widened the secondary to about 6mm. This seems to have made a positive difference, and these planes are performing better. Any thoughts?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Tom Vanzant

09-21-2014, 1:02 PM

I use a knock-off of the Glen-Drake plane hammer to adjust iron and wedge on woodies, and use the blade side on cap iron screws and my "Eclipse" guide.

David Weaver

09-21-2014, 1:13 PM

I'm not kees, but I think that the bevel on the front of the chipbreaker needs to be of reasonable size, and not just tiny. I still like a rounded bevel better, but all of my rounded bevels are about 2-3mm long or so on vintage cap irons.

george wilson

09-21-2014, 1:13 PM

Winton,I have forgotten to mention that those adjustable wrenches you posted a few days ago are classified as bicycle wrenches.

Kees Heiden

09-21-2014, 1:31 PM

Have a look at the Kato video and at the picture about capiron wear in his article on Steve Elliotts site: http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/review_of_cap_iron_study.html

As far as I can see all the action takes place within 0.2 mm. After that the shaving curls away. But he didn't have a mouth, maybe that curls the shaving back again. I know when I plane certain types of wood I get dark spots quite a way up the capiron.

So, I guess your observation is a good one. Don't make it too tiny. I've always made it about 1 mm or so, but Stanley capirons are quite steep allready.

Winton Applegate

09-21-2014, 5:21 PM

Hey !
What have I missed ?
I went back and read the first pages of this thread.

Sounded like more than I can catch up on according to the warning from Dave Anderson.
Trying out that planing technique sure cut into my forum time.
So what the heck, I may as well do what I can here . . .

showing an elimination.
OH MAN LETS NOT GO THERE. THAT’S JUST SICK David

I didn't agree, but didn't figure it to be a good time to be an inflexible jerk . . .

Hey . . . ANY TIME is a good time to be an inflexible jerk.
Here allow me to demonstrate :

"only a 30 reduction"
nooooooo
I said:

at it’s worst 30% more effort . . . (that means a lower percentage for many/ most some what less difficult applications

and

Your grasping at straws at this point
Yah soooooo ?
:)

See how it’s done ? In flexible all the way. Now you try.

Steve V.,

Before I learned to set the chipbreaker, I got tearout; now I don't. My 45° and 50° double irons stop tearout better than than the 55° planes I've used, and they are easier to push. In fact, that is one way you know you've set the cap iron a little too close; if it feels like a 55° or higher plane, back it off just a hair. If you get tearout, you backed it off too much. The sweet spot is somewhere in between.

You can’t be saying stuff like that ! That is straight to the point and truly useful information for the newbie. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING MAN !
A paragraph like that could end this whole conversation, teach the poor newb what he / she needs to know and probably bring about world peace as a side effect.

We simply can not have this here !
Moderator !
Moderator !
Where’s the MODERATOR ?

Kees,

You're the first with real critique. Thanks for that. Critique is good and helpfull.
Was it Zig Ziggler who said in a talk something about him or his friend verify EVERY THING . . . yah I think he said his friend even proof reads the copies from the copy machine.
ha, ha, ha
The weird chip formation still bugs me and the fact that the other science dudes were getting it too . . . well . . . in spite of the success of the chip breaker . . . for me. . . brings into question those studies as well.

Adam,

I have no idea how anyone can do it with the old-style Stanley breakers. Every time I try, I get wood shavings shoved up under it. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I don't have the skillz necessary to mate old-style breakers with blades that well.

Yah I have a real problem with manufacturers that put out a tool that must be precisely made in at least that one area to function I MEAN THAT IS THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT right ? This chip breaker. The chip breaker in the otherwise ordinary or rather frustrating and subpar plane, as planes go, . . .
The chip breaker is not completed.
The chip breaker is a do it your self “KIT PROJECT” that comes with a free plane with every purchase. No you have to finish the machining on the chip breaker.

The plane/chipbreaker should come with the following notice:
Dear customer:
You say you don’t know how to be a metal working machinist !?
You say you just want to be a fine cabinet maker and that you have devoted your life to learing that?
Well . . . the Stanley tool companie's official response to you is :
Too Bad Suckerrrrrrrr.

That ain’t right. I guess part of my problem with BD is just that.

I am a metal worker first so the chip breaker “PROJECT KIT” was no big deal for me. Meaning I had zero prob with shavings under the CB (until I tried the 3 thou. setting a few days ago). Back in the day after reading several sources of what I had to do I fettled it for no light and front edge hitting first while tightened down.
Not everyone can be so lucky.
Ha, ha,
Seriously Stanley ? ? ?
and from reading here about chip breaker settings on the order of .1 mm (.0039 inch) I may have more fettling/machining microscope aided work to do to mine. I was getting chips under mine in roughly speaking that range. I was at about .003 inch.

Or maybe the capiron lost its spring over the years?
Ha, ha,
How does that work ?
Metallurgically speaking ?
I would say it never had enough spring to start with.

When I was a young guy buying tools for various mechanical work, often at good guy prices offered by companies at the end of training courses, I would always buy spare parts for the tools and that ALWAYS included spare springs. You know for five, ten or twenty years down the line when the springs lost their spring and the springs were no longer available especially at the old and even reduced price.

I have NEVER needed even one of those springs.
I’m just saying . . .

the old breakers are unsprung.
So bent less.
That is a very good example of the terminology I used here some where :

Elastic deformation: meaning the cap iron flexed, sprung if you will, and flexed back to its original state when the screw was released to sharpen the blade or what not. LIKE IT SHOULD. LIKE IT WAS INTENDED. like it was designed and manufactured to do by a competent company.

Plastic deformation: meaning the cap iron was stressed, failed to accept those stresses without permanent change in its shape, bent (or unbent) if you will, and FAILED to flex back to its original state when the screw was released to sharpen the blade or what not. A PRODUCT FAILER . This was never INTENDED by the manufacturer (we hope).

Does the latter translate into a design and manufacture by an INCOMPETENT company? Probably not but why make the CB so soft ?

Also
turning the levercap screw a quarter of a turn tighter can increase the pressure to prevent shavings from entering under the chipbreaker.

See now I have to tighten the screw well and that means I don’t have another 1/4 to work with really. I experimented with that way back and found the blade slips along the cap iron if it isn’t tight.

Adam ,
it is important that the part of the underside of the cap iron meets the blade at an angle so the forward most edge is on the blade with clearance behind because when you tighten the screw it rocks the underside of that fettled surface and can lift the forward most edge off the blade a hair. So in other words even your chip breaker edge needs back clearance. Simple huh ? Ha, ha, not really huh ?
It is all worth it though. Now you . . . chant with me “It is all worth it ? “
Wait
I mean
“It is all worth it ! “ “It is all worth it ! “

David W.,
You completely lost me when you said
like a rounded bevel better, but all of my rounded bevels are about 2-3mm long or so on vintage cap irons.
Don't the fibers slip under then ?

Of course, I could just tell my wife that the old blade/breakers need replaced in my #2 and 603

Best to tell her you are taking her out for a burger. The less discussed about hand planes the better. I think the others here will at least agree with me on that.

David W.,
.
I've never seen the depth of that wear stated in thousandth
I don’t know but I am thinking at least measured in .0000 decimal places and probably .00000 decimal places. One thousandth is like a mile when it comes to wear at the edge and that is part of my point when banging on about not rounding the blade edge during sharpening in my past threads.

I am now in love by the way . . . with the “Chinese 12k” stone.
some what bares out what I have said in the past (barring cutting hair on the face) about slurry for the most part being a mistake and that the OLD Norton 8000 WAS a great stone.

exemplifies the danger of coming to a conclusion over pictures.
Oh now . . .
let me have my little moment of discovery without raining on my parade.

In the past I have compared the double iron to using hot hide glue, pole vaulting, and playing the violin.
All at once ?
Funny you should mention that . . . I HAVE BEEN attempting to glue together a violin with hot hide glue, then play it ALL the WHILE pole vaulting. I keep getting glue in my eyes and then when I land the pole hits me in the back of the head.
But I’m getting there.

What is my next great challenge you may ask ?
I am looking at that . . .
I think maybe I’ll try convincing the average person on the street, chosen at random, that there is a direct correlation between all the energy released as heat and pollution by them driving to the next town to work every day, added to their demanding that their cloths be made from cotton grown in one part of the world, shipped half way around the world to be made into cloth in China, then shipped half way back around the world to them to be worn and all the energy released as heat and pollution by that has anything at all to do with climate change.

The fact that the cloths are still cheeper than can be produced in the same country the cotton and the manufacturing is done in (e.g., America) without all the ridiculous shipping and handling even I can’t explain . . . even if I get a longer lighter carbon fiber pole.

Ahhh...I wasn't looking at what I thought I was looking at.
I hate when that happens.

Adam,
I
've torn out with a bevel-up plane just like a bevel-down. The only difference is by moving a chip-breaker closer to the edge, I can tone down tear-out with a double iron whereas bevel-up is just too fickle for me. So, hopefully with a few more years, all this will be second-nature (or close).

Then you need to bend it. Oh wait that is the BD
Well you need to overhaul the plane with screw drivers. No that’s BD
Well you need to order BETTER parts. No . . . that’s BD

Speaking of BU now
You need to put the blade back in the sharpening jig, (you ARE using a sharpening jig so you have some reference of what altitude you are flying at right ?) . . . set the jig maybe five degrees steeper , take about four or five strokes down your finest stone and lock and load.

No you won’t need your screw drivers that was for that other plane.

When you get no tear out you will have honed at the correct angle.
There will be a point when you get no tear out unless your blade back is not flat or you have been remiss in your stone care and sharpening duties.

And what can I say? I'm a masochist. :P I actually like steep, steep learning curves and having to solve problems.

Then from what everyone here tells me, about my self, you are going to simply ADORE the BU with a steep sharpening angle. Except for the learning curve being steep or a problem. That will bore you very quickly in its lack of challenge and complexitude.
Can’t have every thing.

george wilson

09-21-2014, 6:15 PM

Winton,I can hardly make sense of this very long post.

About springs: I will mention that I had to recently stretch the coil trigger spring of my 1907 BSA air rifle; It had lost its ability over the years to keep the trigger from slipping out of the sear,making it impossible to keep the gun cocked. A little stretching has restored it to its proper function. That,and a few other similar instances have led me to believe that metal springs(and lower grade steel parts like the chip breaker) can get a bit tired over time,and need re bending,stretching,or whatever. I think it depends upon the type of spring,type of steel,etc.. The 50 round drums of loaded Thompson sub machine guns seem to still function 50 or 60 years being wound under tension full of ammo. But,that's a very long clock spring type of spring,which,being long,is not subjected to the same strain as a shorter spring,or a chip breaker(which is not as good a steel as spring steel).

Winton Applegate

09-21-2014, 6:52 PM

I can hardly make sense of this very long post.

You will have a lot of company in that I am sure.
I think individuals may see in the quotes their own post and so may pick and choose as if at a rather past its prime buffett. That was the best I could do.
I was sure my house would have been fire bombed, and with good reason, because of the sheer bulk of frame work around each reply that would have been added to the thread if I had made individual "Reply"s to each post I wanted to reply to.
And as you must realize by now for me to remain silent is an impossibility, for good or not so good.
Distracted for a time by other interests yes. Standing by silently (and wisely) observing ? Nah, ain't gonna happen.

I think I have, here today, set a personal record for sheer volume of postage which, I think was only rivaled for its sheer ______ness by my post were I was able to use ALL of the paste in face expressions available here in one post. Ahhhh that was a good one . . .

about the Magnum Copious post all I can say is . . . don't worry . . . it wasn't important.

ian maybury

09-21-2014, 7:06 PM

So far as i know springs (and the cap iron is basically a leaf spring) will definitely tend to relax George - it happens all the time with car and motorcycle suspension. There's often an initial set when the load is first applied - if parts of the spring are not properly heat treated, or were locally softened by heating as a part of a post forming process they may 'give' because the yield stress was exceeded in these areas despite the overall loading being within the nominal design spec. This tends to happen more or less on first loading or soon afterwards, is likely to be stable/not to worsen.

More interestingly it seems that steel held under stress for long periods creeps or relaxes - that's at stresses well below the elastic limit or yield. The amount is determined by the stress level - how close to yield it gets. Temperature plays a role as well - it's worse at higher temperatures. Properly designed springs made from uniformly high quality and properly heat treated steels and loaded to a lower proportion of their strength do much better (and vice versa) - basically because at maximum deflection they typically are not so highly stressed relative to their (higher) yield strength...

The theory is that steel is elastic to its yield point. That may be the case in a tensile test sample of uniform composition and heat treatment, but my own experience having done some testing of welded up highly stressed steel tube structures is that they in practice don't necessarily behave all that elastically at all. Much more as though both of the above factors overlay the underlying elastic characteristic - which they almost certainly do. Confused the hell out of me, and a nice example of a situation where there can be significant differences between taught/presumed application of theory and a rather more complex reality...

Kees Heiden

09-22-2014, 3:42 AM

Kees Heiden

09-22-2014, 4:45 AM

Kees,

Was it Zig Ziggler who said in a talk something about him or his friend verify EVERY THING . . . yah I think he said his friend even proof reads the copies from the copy machine.
ha, ha, ha
The weird chip formation still bugs me and the fact that the other science dudes were getting it too . . . well . . . in spite of the success of the chip breaker . . . for me. . . brings into question those studies as well.

I just ran out to the shop and did a little test on some maple with my blockplane. You can see two shavings in picture. They are both the same length. The one on the left is with a normal mouth (0.5 mm or so), the one on the right is with the mouth fully open like you can see.

So as you can see, this curling is normal behaviour in a plane, also a bevel up. The shaving on the left also starts with a tightish curl, but then it hits the mouth and it is pushed upwards.

I had to experiment a bit. This behaviour depends on the shaving thickness too. This one happens to be 0.09mm thick.

All my tests with each plane setup produced the same curling shavings. So I think the results are valid relative to each other. And now I can produce a similar shaving with a bevel up plane too, I think we can also conclude that the results are valid for bevel up planes too.

Another conclusion is that the mouth is important to guide the shaving upwards out of the plane. Hardly surprising, that conclusion, but still fun to watch it happen.

297095

Kees Heiden

09-22-2014, 5:06 AM

Here is the table from the article from Akinori Yamashita. It tells us how to make the mouth to avoid clogging with a double iron plane.

Some explanations. P is the "chip guide". We call this the wear. That is the front wall of the mouth in front of the cutting edge. The height of the wear was 10 mm.

Shaving thickness was 0.04 mm. Capiron bevel angle was 50 degrees. Bedding angle of the plane 40 degrees.

The crosses in the table present a clogging situation. The triangles are the rolled up shaving like in my previous post and the circles are proper shaving discharge.

Behaviour was the same for planing against the grain and parallel to the grain.

0.2 mm mouth width is a value where you can expect anti tearout behaviour.

Hope I didn't forget anything!

297096

ian maybury

09-22-2014, 6:09 AM

Hi Kees. Just to pitch the 'shaving centered view' again: The plane having been moved forward by the force applied by the user (which isn't necessarily a simple horizontal 'shove'), I guess the shaving doesn't terribly care what type (of plane) is involved.

It just experiences being cleaved off, and contact with various surfaces. Which act on it as they do. The resulting force balance(s) (actions and reactions) then largely determine what happens on the workpiece, the form of the shaving and the handling of the plane...

We likely do a lot of unconscious simplification of the dynamics of what's going on when we think, but there are also potentially a lot of irreleveant considerations in the mind models we work with too. The above for example thinks of the forces as acting in the vertical plane, but there is potentially lots going on in other directions too. (although it may or may not influence the above)

Kees Heiden

09-22-2014, 6:17 AM

Absolutely! There are plenty of design parameters influencing the experience like the handles, the weight, the center of gravity, the solidity of the plane etc, but I don't think the shaving cares if the bevel points up or down.

Bruce Mack

09-22-2014, 6:26 AM

Thanks Winton. I got up at 5 AM with my pinched nerve and tottered to the computer to try a seated position. Your humor restored order.

David Weaver

09-22-2014, 7:18 AM

(winton says a lot of words and they're all parsed up)

Winton...here you go and bring this post up after the fight is over...and I have no more fight!!

Plus, after all of those quotes come out in a reply, it's almost impossible to parse the post!!

(I noticed I spelled "your doing it wrong", wrong. That's my favorite place to misspell that, from an old inside joke. Me and some folks used to always misspell that because it irritates the reader. "your wrong" or "your doing that wrong" :) It has a different meaning than "you're doing it wrong", though, but I should've done it elsewhere since this place doesn't have that convention - I'd love to get it going, though :))

What else can I say, me likey stanley profile. Think quarter round with the 2-3mm bit, still sharp at the edge, closer to the profile of a stanley chipbreaker once the front edge is rounded, though - just not as tall. Just do the old paul sellers roll on the front edge of the thing.

If you love the 12k chinese hone, go to woodcraft in person and look for one that appears to have stretch marks on it. Those are the hard ones that will give that polish. The is a Polish (not polish) seller on ebay who sells them, and sometimes they are good and sometimes they are too soft and slurry. They won't do what is in that picture if they slurry - they're more like a 4k/5k stone if they slurry. You'll have to get up off of your bevel to use them, though - too slow otherwise in non slurry mode. I have had four of them, only one of those four stones was really good, two were "eh.." and the fourth was junk - I cut it up for a nagura, and it's not even good at that.

And for the elimination - well, cap iron and tearout or whatever the subject, elimination is really satisfying!

(I knew when ellis put that picture in that some day, someone would take my article and say "hey look, it doesn't work, there's still tearout" - it's happened twice so far)

I can tell the conversion is coming soon...winton will soon be using mostly stanley planes with the cap iron set.

Warren Mickley

09-22-2014, 7:47 AM

Stanley capirons certainly aren't made of "uniformly high quality and properly heat treated steels". No idea what they are made of, but it is a rather soft, gummy metal that creates huge and persistant wire edges when you work on the bevel. So that would explain their sagging under the constant pressure of the levercap over a 100 years or so.

Do you have any data on this sagging?

I have a small amount of data provided by my five planes. Three of the cap irons are over 100 years old; the other two are 31 and 41 years old. None of the cap irons have been altered in the last 30 years. I checked these cap irons this morning and it appears that they are all still functional, that none of them relaxed over the weekend. I am not anticipating that they will relax in my lifetime.

I do have one more interesting bit of information. The cap irons in the Seaton chest (1796) have a small strip of steel welded to the iron at the tip..

David Weaver

09-22-2014, 8:03 AM

I've also never noticed much on my cap irons, except for one plane. I received an 8 that came to me in parts from ebay (early on in my woodworking fiddling) that had a cap iron that was worn through in the middle. The mouth had a similar level of erosion, I don't know what the plane had been used for. I guess the mouth erosion isn't that uncommon, but the fact that the cap iron was worn through only in the middle was odd (and rude that the seller couldn't be troubled to mention it).

In the last two and a half years, I haven't had any issues with stanley irons seeming too thin (no matter how hard the wood) nor any cap irons seeming anything other than totally solid in the cut. If anything, the whole assembly (the plane with the irons properly set) will stop me in my tracks if the cut is too deep, or skip on a board at the start of a cut, but not chatter or feel flimsy.

Kees Heiden

09-22-2014, 8:49 AM

Only one example. A #7 type 11. Shavings would find its way under the cap no matter what, as soon as it was set close to the edge. I've reworked it several times to no avail. Bending it a bit in the vise cured this problem. So it is just one example, and I'm not even 100% sure if it was due to sagging.

I don't have many planes, so I am not the best person to ask about all manners of things that can go wrong with a plane.

ian maybury

09-22-2014, 12:01 PM

Guess there's numerous possibilities for issues with the traditional layout chip breaker. One birthday present in the mid 60s was a small Stanley plane - can't remember the size. I can agree that the steel in the chip breaker felt soft. Against that the format can't be helpful - long slots often lead to funnies. Especially if there's residual stress about from punching and/or similar. Add lots of heavy tightening (with the screw bearing only on the edges of the slot) and it might not be hard for it to belly somewhat and end up taking a set...

David Weaver

09-22-2014, 12:13 PM

The body of the cap iron should lay flat against the iron, and the two ends of the hump should be in contact with the iron when the cap iron is tightened. There's really no great reason for it to be hard - it needs for the small hump to be sprung somewhat. The rest of it doesn't deform unless someone does something to abuse it while it's apart.

Gary Muto

09-22-2014, 9:12 PM

Hi Gary,

Thanks for your comment. Chatter has the habbit of being triggered somehow. It appears suddenly somewhere in the middle of a board. The Stanley plane isn't known as the most chatter resistant design ever made. Especially with the thin original blades you can have some trouble now and then.

In the situation I wrote about, I tested the Stanley plane on a piece of curly wallnut. 45 degree to 55 degree gave no chatter problems, and resulted in a smooth results. Likewise with the capiron settings of 0.3 to 0.1 mm from the edge, no problem at all, smooth surface. But the 60 degree cutting angle suddenly produced a remarkable amount of chatter. Because you write about resonance, would it be some kind of harmonic resonance where the cutting action excites a frequency which happens to be the same as the natural frequency of the plane blade? But why didn't the chatter happen at 55 degrees, which is the same blade, bedded the same way, only with a slightly different backbevel?

Then I ripped the board in half so it was 2cm wide, and the chatter went away. The same plane setup, the same wood, no chatter. Reducing the cutting width reduces the forces on the edge. These things sure get complicated!

BTW, the chatter had no influence on the tearout.

Kees,

I agree on the chatter not being related to tear out.

The excitation does not have to be at the same frequency as the natural frequency as the blade. The blade (system) will resonate at its natural frequency regardless of the input frequency. Shortening the depth of cut for example will increase the system stiffness and resultant reaonance. Typically it is easier to get more displacement with lower frequencies so I suspect that this is happening here. I am making general statements here but I think they are accurate.

Winton Applegate

09-23-2014, 12:10 AM

Stanley capirons certainly aren't made of "uniformly high quality and properly heat treated steels". No idea what they are made of, but it is a rather soft, gummy metal that creates huge and persistant wire edges when you work on the bevel. So that would explain their sagging under the constant pressure of the levercap over a 100 years or so.

Ha, ha,
No gummy saggy butt steel on my LN BU.

Serious question now . . .
? Was there one or more HIGH End, boutique, made right, built to last and work well, double iron planes . . . you know for the impatient, intolerant girly men like me that want a well make plane and don't know that "too much" is too much to spend on a plane.

For instance kind a like these (http://www.marcouplanes.com/Marcou_Planes_28_Handplanes.php) but with a chip breaker but back in the day.

Kees Heiden

09-23-2014, 1:40 AM

Infill planes?

i think the older Stanleys were damned good planes.

David Weaver

09-23-2014, 7:27 AM

I'd agree with kees, the Stanley planes are high quality. Winton, I think most of the old infill planes would've met your description.

I also can only think of one cap iron that's hardened at all, and that's the one in the command set, and it's very mildly hardened. They're otherwise but steel, and I haven't yet used one that works as easily and as well as the stamped Stanley cap irons.

Oh, and given the choice between the two (take a stanley 6, for example, and an 18" spiers infill - other than for the fact that the spiers infill is worth more, I'd have a stanley 6 if I could only have one plane. I have both - well, my spiers panel is only a spiers copy built from a shepherd kit, but I'd suspect it's working far better and is far tighter than most vintage spiers planes).

Derek Cohen

09-23-2014, 8:36 AM

Hi Winton

High cutting angles have a place, either with a BU with a high included angle or a BD with a high bed. As do back bevels, and close set chip breakers. They all work and are just choices.

I continue to find it so interesting that I cop flack on this forum for suggesting a high included angle in a BU plane on squirrelly grain, and then on the Oz forum I cop flack for suggesting a close set chip breaker! :)

In a current thread on the Oz forum the discussion had turned to high angle frogs (everyone) vs chip breakers (me), and so I posted the following ...

"These photos were taken on the spur of the moment, so it is not intended as an experiment. Still, you can see the result. The chip breaker was set close (about .3mm). The wood used is a scrap of Fiddleback Jarrah from my chair build. This stuff just tore out with the spokeshaves during my build, which forced me to use rasps. Here I am using it with the LN #3 with a 55 degree frog planing into the grain (look at the side), just to make it more difficult. http://www.woodcentral.com/webbbs/smileys/smile.gif

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/Planing1_zpsfc3d7a25.jpg

Above: the surface quality is excellent. No signs of any tear out.

Here is a close up of the shavings - pretty typical straight shavings when the chip breaker is working ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/Planing2_zps0c20b17a.jpg

With just a rub of wax, the finish is pretty good (just for reference, the board is rotated, so the grain is now forward) ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/Planing3_zps07075ae5.jpg

(One of the forum members argued that the reason for the LN's performance was that its high frog and high cutting angle. Consequently I posted the following ...) ....

I took a few more photos, which will add to the information, and I will use to respond to your observation/question (not sure which it is).

Returning to the interlocked section of Fiddleback Jarrah, the LN#3 (with 55 degree frog) planed into the grain again. This time the chip breaker was pulled back to 1/16", where it was out of the way. In part this was to test the belief held by Stewie that the high bed/frog (i.e. cutting angle) was responsible for the earlier results.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/1_zps5c6f4b8d.jpg

You can see the change in the shape of the shavings. They are no longer straight but curly.

A close up of the surface reveals tearout throughout - not nearly as good as when the chip breaker was also used with this plane ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/2_zpse08bc974.jpg

Now I switch to another #3, a Stanley with a LV PM-V11 blade and LV chipbreaker. The leading edge now has a 45 degree secondary bevel and is placed about .3mm from the edge of the blade.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/3_zps97123447.jpg

Note how flat/straight are the shavings ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/4_zpsf219884c.jpg

What of the surface quality?

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/6_zps89075c6b.jpg

Well, it is not as good as the LN with 55 degree frog and closed up chipbreaker, but it is a whole lot better than the LN with the chipbreaker pulled back

The lower angle Stanley is easier to push than the higher angle LN. However the difference would be negligible with waxed soles.

The other factor is that the cutting angle does make a difference, and is additive to the chip breaker effect - which is something I have been banging on about for the past few years. There is no doubt that both have an effect, and that the effects can be additive.

Regards from Perth

Derek

David Weaver

09-23-2014, 8:40 AM

It looks like the cap iron is too far from the edge. What do you get if you put it about half as far away?

In working something like that with a stanley plane, I'd take a penultimate set of shavings like you've taken and then back off the cut depth to half or less and take a few passes. That should eliminate the tearout that's still there, but if it doesn't, I'd advance the cap iron forward.

Derek Cohen

09-23-2014, 8:48 AM

David, it was not a serious planning session, but a quick illustration that the chip breaker imparts a positive effect on performance. While not perfect, it was enough to show the effect.

Regards from Perth

Derek

David Weaver

09-23-2014, 8:58 AM

Right, I get that. I guess i'm wondering about a different point, and that is whether or not the plane itself could make a finish-ready surface and negate the need for the 55 degree plane in the first place.

Winton Applegate

09-25-2014, 2:25 AM

I went to the shop and made curls and yes they started out very tight. See first two photos.
I never really noticed the very beginnings being so tight.

Most of my serious problem planing was on the long planks and the ribbons were so long I always thought they were straightish. See the last photo (it is bubinga not purple heart. I suppose it started out all tightly wrapped but the vast majority of it is relaxed and pretty straight.

I was also referring to David W.s comment that when you get the setting right it straightens out the curl.

. . . sheeeesh

? ? :confused:

ian maybury

09-25-2014, 7:42 AM

We tend to get very caught up in and identified with our individual thought bubbbles, but i think we're all caught in and subject to the fairly random seeming the ebb and flow of information and opinion so far as woodworking is concerned - especially regarding fairly esoteric stuff like fine set up of planes. Seems fairly clear that it's long been known that close set chip breakers, higher pitches and very sharp edges help with tearout, but not universally/it probably mattered to only a few doing relaatively high end work. Against that there's tools, methods (stuff like waterstones and diamond plates) and hardware available (stuff like good blades) that seem to make precise set ups more accessible now too.

It seems like there have long been pockets of knowledge and highly analytical individuals that have had or rediscovered this sort of capability, but that it has arisen and flourished locally in places, and then faded out again at times. As in there's never any definitive store of information or institution to pass it on that's not lost as change happens and people age and die. Especially not very high level craft skills - so many of which are unspoken anyway, and which so few become capable of or give a rat's ass about. Wonder how many times the wheel has been invented?

The internet - where groups of interested people who previously would have worked away in isolation get to inspire each other, to pass on information and to create high intensity interest groups adds something that hasn't been around before - there's a definite hot housing effect. An essential spark for guys like me working in isolation.

Wonder if our bubble too will in due course pop and fade out??? We still don't always do a great job of separating out and recording the stuff that really matters - we struggle to extract and communicate essentials, get hung up on stuff, and can never be sure how generalisable our experience is. It's in there somewhere in the cacophony of comment, but not necessarily in a form that an unskilled reader might be able to extract. :) Can you imagine some archaeological type happening on a lost memory device in centuries to come and what they might make of it all...