CS about capirons

[Kees Heiden]

CS:
In addition to my lecture on nails, I’m also giving a talk on “double irons” – aka “cap irons,” “back irons” or “chipbreakers.”
While a few people on the forums have burned this topic in effigy, I have found that a reasoned, historical-based discussing of this 18th-century device helps students immensely. Most woodworkers don’t have the patience to wade into the nasty discussions about double irons to extract the useful bits.
This lecture is about the useful bits. (And why Stanley needs to spanked for almost ruining the technology for us.)

He's not talking about us, is he? :D
I wonder what Stanley did wrong according to our friend Chris.

[Derek Cohen]

Kees, I think what Stanley did was to refer only to the chip breaker as a "cap iron", that is, to beef up a thin blade. That is the substance of their patent, as I recall. No where am I aware that they actually proposed that the cap iron be used to bend chips/shavings and be an integral part of chip formation. This was left to others to do. Any other thoughts?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Yes maybe that's it. But how could that be wrong? How to use the capiron wasn't patentable, it was old knowledge by then. So maybe they assumed everyone knew allready how to use it? Most users were professionals back then who had had some kind of education or apprenticeship. Real user manuals like we have today were not the norm back then.

Stanley Australia published a leaflet in the 1950's with some information about how to use the capiron close to the edge. It's on the toolemera website: http://www.toolemera.com/pampdf/stanleyhintsplaneAU.pdf

[Warren Mickley]

Seven years ago Chris Schwarz thought he knew all about double iron planes also. Here is what he had to say about Kato and Holtzapffel. He interpreted Kato for those who did not have the patience to wade through the nasty paper.

http://blog.lostartpress.com/2007/12/31/chipbreakers-the-no-6-way-to-reduce-tear-out/

Three weeks earlier I had written this on another forum:

I think highly of the 18th century cabinetmakers and tool makers (many were both, making their own planes). It is somewhat hurtful to hear them disparaged as duped by a marketing gimmick.
My feeling is that anyone who does not see the value of the double iron system probably does not understand how to use it. I know that this puts some people who consider themselves experts into a somewhat lesser category and I apologize for it.


Schwarz certainly did his part to muddy the waters. I wonder if is not still in the dark.

[David Weaver]

Phew, that's not one of the old woodcentral threads where I was beating the drum about the ease of using a single iron plane.

(I noticed larry suggested there is no way to make a double iron plane that doesn't clog at the end of the abutments without terminating them far up the plane. I think we covered that in a few threads here. It does require some careful fitting, but so does everything on a wooden plane in general)

[george wilson]

WHY would someone waste time making 2 parts to a blade when they'd be better off just making the single blade THICKER? The cap iron being only to strengthen the blade makes no sense at all. The cap iron is more trouble to make than the blade: You have to make a die to bend the chip breaker curve into the same shape. You have to make the screw. Very often,you will see that old makers forged a thicker boss on the cap iron where the screw went through,to make more thread length. Else,they made a brass boss that was peened into the cap iron to provide more screw length for the cap screw. All that is MORE TROUBLE AND EXPENSE for the plane maker. And,what for???? To only make the blade stiffer???? That makes no sense at all. There had to be a better reason. And now,it has been shown that the chip breaker keeps difficult wood from tearing IF you know how to USE it. I see no need for discussion beyond that simple fact.

I do not mean to sound sour here,just re reciting the facts about manufacturing costs and facts proven by the Japanese video,and actual users.

[Kees Heiden]

Back then in 2007 Chris ran into the same trap as I did at first. When you set the capiron closer to the edge AND you have a tight mouth, you run the chance of clogging the mouth. It takes some precision work on preparing the capiron to make that combination possible.

One thing, he wasn't afraid to eat crow when he discovered that he had been wrong.

[Sean Hughto]

I think there is a typo in the title of this thread: The correct first letter is two spaces right on the keyboard. Natural finger slip. ;-)

[george wilson]

I also did not know the correct use of the cap iron,and was glad to find out. I never would have gone so far as to say that the cap iron was put there JUST to FRUSTRATE you,though. I THINK I read that in the link above. But,I'm getting old and forgetful.

Edit: I DID read that after all!!:) Why would penny pinching manufacturers make extra parts just to FRUSTRATE their customers??????? That kind of of bass ackwards to business wisdom,isn't it?

I'm not knocking Chris here. I'm quoting him. Do not accuse me of "piling on".

[Adam Cruea]

My understanding is that a high angle of attack on the chips reduces/removes tear out more than a closed mouth; is this the correct understanding?

[Steve Voigt]

One thing, he wasn't afraid to eat crow when he discovered that he had been wrong.

That's right:
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/reconsidering-chipbreakers-as-not-totally-evil

I have much respect for Chris, George, and anyone else who is not too proud to admit they didn't really know how to use the double iron. No respect at all for the ones who say "oh, I knew that all along" because I'm sure almost all of them are lying.

I have no idea what he's talking about re Stanley, though.

And with that, I think I might just be done talking about double irons. George is right; there's not much to say that hasn't already been said about this.

[Jim Koepke]

... what Stanley did was to refer only to the chip breaker as a "cap iron", that is, to beef up a thin blade. That is the substance of their patent...

Regards from Perth

Derek

With a little digging (via Google) this was found:


The 18th century brought significant improvements to the wood plane. Handles began to evolve which made the plane much easier to use. The installation process of the iron evolved as well. The iron was wedged into place in tapered grooves which were cut into the sides of the body rather than being wedged against a cross-bar. Wedging the iron in tapered grooves with a more thinly shaped wedge allowed the plane to clog less often, and hence, increasing the work time. Much later in the century another improvement was made to the plane’s design, the use of double iron. A slightly curved cap iron, or chipbreaker, screwed to the cutting iron greatly improved the plane’s ability to cut difficult wood. This made the entire plane heavier, more rigid and more stable, and it allowed the shavings to curl and break apart as they pass through the mouth. This simple mechanical advantage reduced tear out and left smoother surfaces.

Could it have been that Leonard Bailey (Stanley Rule & Level) couldn't patent something already part of common practice and in wide use? In the design of things Bailey/Stanley, the cap iron is what connected the blade to the Bailey adjuster.

Did other cap irons of the day have the pronounced hump of the Bailey design?

This hump allowed the Bailey designed lever cap a 'springy' surface with which it could perform its purpose.

It appears others may have already knew about the advantages of using a double iron to impart better control of shavings in turn causing a better surface may not have been a patentable feature.

At that time many skilled workers were reluctant to divulge the 'secrets' of their trade. If some young wiper snapper came along with all of their knowledge they might be out of a job.

In my lifetime I have worked with people who felt as much.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

My understanding is that a high angle of attack on the chips reduces/removes tear out more than a closed mouth; is this the correct understanding?

Not sure if you are talking about a high angle bedding of the blade or the angle of the meeting of the shaving against the chip breaker.

From my experience since this has all been made clear, setting of the cap iron has more effect on reducing tear out than setting the mouth tight.

Of course as always,

297257

jtk

[David Weaver]

My understanding is that a high angle of attack on the chips reduces/removes tear out more than a closed mouth; is this the correct understanding?

IME, the high angle is generally more helpful than closing the mouth if elimination of the tearout is what you want. Closing a planes mouth with a thick shaving will often leave a tolerable amount of tearout prior to final smoothing, but raising the angle will often eliminate it. There are levels of severity with each, I'm sure, where just closing a mouth to a tiny amount will do the job, but I've always had a distaste for how that:
1) limits the shaving a plane can take - you're often at such a narrow feed that any shaving you could feed through wouldn't tear out much to begin with
2) feeding any shaving through the plane that has a thickness that's a substantial % of the mouth width is akin to breathing during a mild asthma attack. You can do it but it just doesn't feel right.

[Derek Cohen]

My understanding is that a high angle of attack on the chips reduces/removes tear out more than a closed mouth; is this the correct understanding?

Hi Adam

The size of the mouth becomes unimportant once you have a cutting angle of about 55 degrees. Leave it wide open if you like with a 60 degree bed in a BD plane or a 60 degree included angle in a BU plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Charles Bjorgen]

My copy of the Woodcraft reprint of "Planecraft" has the following information on setting the cap iron on page 43:
For rough work Cap Iron 1/32 in. to 1/16 in. from edge
For finishing work. ". " 1/64 in. ". "
For Hard Woods
With irregular grain. as close as you can get it to cutting edge

This book was originally printed in 1934, revised and enlarged in 1950. The copy I bought from Woodcraft has a 1997 copyright and I probably got it a year or two after that. It was written, I believe, for Record Ridgeway Tools, makers of Record planes. The book has been mentioned in the various forums before. As with so many others, I didn't pay much attention to the above until the Kato info came out.

[bridger berdel]

As a young man just starting out using planes I had a pretty good explanation of chipbreaker function given to me. I used planes as a pretty regular part of my toolbox, and struggled with the chipbreaker. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't and mostly I could not figure out why. I sharpened with a medium arkansas stone for the most part and got my tools pretty sharp, but they could have been sharper and that is likely a factor. My main jack plane was a transitional, so there were limits to the fettling too. Mostly if I wanted a nice surface I would get it as sharp as I could, set it for a very fine shaving and figure on scraping or sanding afterward. Straight razors upped my sharpening game a full level and having a more complete understanding of and practical methods for using the chipbreaker have made planes much better tools in my hands.

[John Coloccia]

CS:
In addition to my lecture on nails, I’m also giving a talk on “double irons” – aka “cap irons,” “back irons” or “chipbreakers.”
While a few people on the forums have burned this topic in effigy, I have found that a reasoned, historical-based discussing of this 18th-century device helps students immensely. Most woodworkers don’t have the patience to wade into the nasty discussions about double irons to extract the useful bits.
This lecture is about the useful bits. (And why Stanley needs to spanked for almost ruining the technology for us.)

He's not talking about us, is he? :D
I wonder what Stanley did wrong according to our friend Chris.

I've met Chris a couple of times now. He seems like a very nice, amicable fellow. I'd enjoy talking woodworking with him over a beer. That said, he's essentially a professional blogger, and he also seems to have this annoying habit of pretending to be above the fray by entering the conversation, poking fun at the guys doing the heavy lifting, and then announcing, "I'm above the fray!" Meh.

I've stopped reading magazines, and I've certainly stopped watching videos and reading blogs by people who are mainly professional video makers and writers. I've found, hands down, the most useful and accurate information is usually right here on SMC, written by real people with real life experience, and many of whom are pros or serious hobbyists.

My $.02.

[Jim Matthews]

I was under the impression that the modern cap iron, with it's incorporated adjustment levers was an outgrowth
of spring making techniques, and was a way to get thinner and tougher steels to cooperate.

It seems to me, all things being equal, that it would take less time to sharpen a thinner blade.

There's just so much about the Bailey design that advanced the art of holding a blade
beyond the woodies I favor. Even if the cap iron is improperly set, adjusting a blade
with one installed is much easier for the novice user than the faff of setting a wood body plane.

Mr. Bailey, like the inventors of cable ties and flush toilets are nearly anonymous,
while their genius is ubiquitous.

[Brian Holcombe]

I've met Chris a couple of times now. He seems like a very nice, amicable fellow. I'd enjoy talking woodworking with him over a beer. That said, he's essentially a professional blogger, and he also seems to have this annoying habit of pretending to be above the fray by entering the conversation, poking fun at the guys doing the heavy lifting, and then announcing, "I'm above the fray!" Meh.

I've stopped reading magazines, and I've certainly stopped watching videos and reading blogs by people who are mainly professional video makers and writers. I've found, hands down, the most useful and accurate information is usually right here on SMC, written by real people with real life experience, and many of whom are pros or serious hobbyists.

My $.02.

I agree completely. I feel like he spends a great deal of time researching the subject, which would no doubt involve SMC, then quickly discounts the value of places like SMC as being a place of perpetual argument without much insight to offer.

Specialized forums are one of the few places you can gain worthwhile insight on topics like those covered by this forum. Where else would you find a great deal of insight on such obscure topics?

[David Weaver]

It's easier just to not read anything he writes :) it really wouldn't make any difference in what we do as far as woodworking or learning, and if we spent the same amount of time actually reading information from accomplished woodworkers, we'd probably be better off. Pick up the phone and call george or post a picture for george and warren to opine on if there is a question of actual relevance. It's far more valuable if you can get through George's jokes on the phone :)

Bloggers constantly write posts to try to keep people interested in whatever their gimmick is. it's not as if they withhold posting until they actually have something really substantive, most of the posts are about nearly nothing of use to anyone. We do the same here posting, but at least it's a conversation - which is far more enjoyable.

John C makes my point exactly, which is what got us on the bloggers' poo poo lists a long time ago - when the whole cap iron thing started, we had a long post where I wanted to make sure it was known that the push came from forum discussion, and not from a blogger (at the time I was getting PMs from people telling me that the bloggers could help me understand the cap iron if I needed to learn.....after ellis already helped me publish an article on woodcentral). Forum discussion is free for the taking and open for the offering by lots of people like me who have no obligation to post anything and who make no money or promote nothing for it. Or George, who bends over backwards to try to make sure people get accurate information and get a sense for design, despite the fact that he gets nothing in return (George's contributions and opinions are, of course, worth much more than mine - but he is no less accessible than an enthusiastic amateur, freely giving precise, experienced and proven advice that is better than what a lot of people are paying for). So if the bloggers don't like the forums....well, we don't need them to, we really don't even need them to blog.

We don't need them to connect us to manufacturers, either. Some of those guys are right here. You can send Rob Lee a PM and he answers them. You can pick up the phone and call LN or any of the other makers of stuff. We have it pretty good.

[Sean Hughto]

Alright, I gotta speak up for Chris. Like everyone else, he is limited by his experience at any given moment, and, therefore, can be wrong about stuff. (David, you too have had ideas about woodworking and details of using tools, evolve, no?)

Chris is sincere and honest. He has done as much as anyone to contribute to the current renaissance in handtools and handtool woodworking. He puts out excellent high quality books by some of the greatest woodworkers around. I personally have gained a lot as a hobbiest from his insights and tools and techniques he has shared in his writings. I would miss him greatly if he were not around making all these contributions all the time.

[David Weaver]

(David, you too have had ideas about woodworking and details of using tools, evolve, no?)


of course. I'm pretty careful not to promote anything to anyone though, just my opinions. I also recognize the pecking order and respect it (that is, that information comes from the highest quality source first, and you only go down the ladder if you have to). I didn't learn that right away, but I haven't been woodworking as long as most people.

If I were a professional blogger and amateur woodworker, I'd be wholly open to criticism about my mistakes, even if people called me a hack. You can call me a hack right now, even in my wooden plane thread if you'd like :) I wouldn't be bothered by it.

(in fact, I'd quite like it if folks did and offered real criticism of the few things that I show on here when I'm making them. Rather than get upset, I would try to figure out if there was something you know that I don't, and I'd try to get it out of you).

[John Coloccia]

Chris is sincere and honest.

And I'll add he also seems to be very nice and gracious, at least the couple of times I ran into him.

[george wilson]

That is how you make progress,David. I am the same way,though some might not think so. It depends upon how really wrong I know the other person is. And,I do have many years of my own learning to draw conclusions from.

[David Weaver]

And I'll add he also seems to be very nice and gracious, at least the couple of times I ran into him.

I think there is a divide that's based on that. Some people like both:
* hearing information from a nice person who gives OK information but who is entertaining and they feel like they'd like to have a beer with
* getting information from professionals who don't live to give it out, but who are gruff and who may divulge something if it seems worth while (generally they have far better than OK information)

I guess I never get excited about the first point. Some people do, and some people only do, choosing to communicate only with folks that they like. I just want the most accurate answer, or enough background to decide on an answer when a reasoned professional would provide several and say they are all OK and preference is a matter of opinion. Someone who cares only about the quality of the answer and doesn't advance personalities is likely to draw heat from the type of person who puts "nice people" above all other things. That's OK.

[John Coloccia]

I think there is a divide that's based on that. Some people like both:
* hearing information from a nice person who gives OK information but who is entertaining and they feel like they'd like to have a beer with
* getting information from professionals who don't live to give it out, but who are gruff and who may divulge something if it seems worth while (generally they have far better than OK information)

I guess I never get excited about the first point. Some people do, and some people only do, choosing to communicate only with folks that they like. I just want the most accurate answer, or enough background to decide on an answer when a reasoned professional would provide several and say they are all OK and preference is a matter of opinion. Someone who cares only about the quality of the answer and doesn't advance personalities is likely to draw heat from the type of person who puts "nice people" above all other things. That's OK.

Well, I'll tell you something, David. I haven't had a subscription to a magazine...ANY magazine...in over 20 years. In retrospect, the only ones I had that were ever worth a darn was a couple of subscriptions to some R/C Airplane magazines. Those articles were generally written by hobbyists, for hobbyists. You know, normal working stiffs like us that are just looking for some practical tips or hints for the few minutes of free time we have every week.

I think most people would be very surprised watching a real pro work. I'd highly encourage everyone to take a class someday, but not just these organized woodworking school type classes (though they're great too!). If you could somehow get with a local guy and figure out a way to even just watch him work, I'd advise bringing a notebook and a couple of pens because you'll have so many moments when you think, "Oh my God...that's so simple. Why haven't I ever seen that anywhere??", you'll struggle to remember them all.

[Warren Mickley]

Chris Schwarz:
While a few people on the forums have burned this topic in effigy, I have found that a reasoned, historical-based discussing of this 18th-century device helps students immensely. Most woodworkers don’t have the patience to wade into the nasty discussions about double irons to extract the useful bits.
This lecture is about the useful bits. (And why Stanley needs to spanked for almost ruining the technology for us.)

There has been a reasoned and historical based discussion of this topic on various fora for over seven years. There has been historical and present day evidence presented by Todd Hughes, by me, by Steve Elliott, Chutaro Kato, Gary Blum, Bob Strawn, David Weaver, Bill Tindall, Kees van der Heiden, Wilbur Pan, and Jeff Burks (and more) For years Chris was denying or denigrating our testimony. It is insulting that he now compares himself to the source of this knowledge and paints himself as the voice of reason, knowledge and historical perspective.

Stanley needs to spanked for almost ruining the technology for us? Schwarz certainly tried to ruin it also.

[David Weaver]

Stanley made the easiest to use cap iron that's ever been made, and put an easy to sharpen and easy to grind iron with it. The plane design is genius in that it solves every thing in wooden planes that can be a little bit more difficult or subtle to make, keep in check, etc.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Perspective..... we all have one and it comes from what we hear, what we see, and what we read. The difficulty comes from getting enough basic and accurate knowledge that we gain the ability to filter the information from our sources and decide whether someone has provided info we wish to investigate further, whether they are talking through their hat, or if the veracity is somewhere in between. We all have to start somewhere on this journey and my personal opinion is that the internet is probably the worst place to start for a brand spanking new beginner. It is too easy to get misled by bogus or partially correct information which leads the person down the wrong path. To my mind, better places to start are learning from someone with experience and reading books older than the 1930s.

Like John, I too avoid the blogs and have cut back on, and will soon eliminate, my last magazine subscription. That is not to say I don't have more to learn. I certainly do and always will. I also have cut back on my internet time as I have become bored with the constant repetition of the same topics over the last 15+ years and find my limited time more productively spent either making things or learning face to face with teachers and mentors. Perhaps I've become jaded, but I think not. I just have found different sources for good information and inspiration. I'm geographically fortunate in this respect and realize others lack this good fortune. I just issue the warning that particularly beginners need to read critically on the net and carefully vet the source.

[george wilson]

That is exactly the truth,Dave. I hate seeing newbies getting mislead by the internet discussions.

[Pat Barry]

Wasn't it entirely predictable that the discussion would evolve to the two positions that are always taken whenever the name(or initials) of an 'expert' are introduced to a discussion here? Its like on one side we have envy and jealousy about the (pretense) of 'expertise' and the other side we have our internal point of view where we know for a fact that we know more than the 'experts' and never the two shall meet. Topics like this can amount to nothing but a bunch of puffed up chests, shouting, one-ups-man-ship, slandering, etc. Can't we all just get along?

[David Weaver]

>>know more than the experts<<

Who are the experts? There are two here that I can think of. Rob Millard would be a blog expert, though I don't know that he updates his blog often. Same with the Anthony Hay cabinet shop blog. CS is not an expert (at least not in woodworking), which is exactly the point.

I agree with Dave Anderson's sentiments exactly, and can't blame him if 15 years has worn him out. And his sentiment about where to get information is spot on - either from actual professionals by observation or from older texts. Criticism is not only driven by envy, though that's the easy accusation to make. I'm not sure what there is to envy.

For those of us who started woodworking in the internet era and found out the people who we thought were experts actually are not, and who didn't give us very good information (compared to what a true professional/expert wood) but gave us a lot of it, it's more about wishing someone would've pointed us in a different direction to start. Everyone has their turning points as amateurs. That doesn't mean we're competent (i'm certainly not a "competent" woodworker), it just means we can identify when a route change made us better relative to what we were. For me, it was the first saw handle I posted. I got all rah rah, and I thought it looked OK. George pointed out several elements and expedited improvement (and satisfaction) in what I made. It was information that amateurs can't consistently provide. It made a drastic difference in my second saw. to the point that the second saw was almost acceptable as tasteful, and the first one clearly was not close.

Most of the rest of the stuff that gets kicked around on the blogs (the next new tool, the next new set of classes, etc...) is fatiguing, but it's the same as the magazine issue. If blogs are going to continue their viability, especially in line with the shows (or if they are selling something), they need too appeal to beginners. Eventually people with experience will go their own route and stop reading them, or read them only for entertainment.

I like Dave's advice, and my pondering on the professionals thread has a lot more to do with thinking that it's almost pointless for me and other amateurs to provide advice - I probably wouldn't take my own, and I'm not too offended when someone doesn't take mine, either - what credibility do I have? None, as it should be. The forums and careful attention to who knows what has proved to me who does, though.

I really don't think it's a bad thing to suggest what is, you may suggest what is to be something different, but I won't accuse you of envy because I have no idea what your goals are. I'd point out that something was totally incorrect if you were way off base, though, and that's what the forums are good for. People will do that less in print because it's permanent and they have relationships to keep. If I stopped reading here tomorrow, there are several people I'd keep in contact with from here, but I don't ever put the brakes on because i'm afraid to offend them.

[ian maybury]

Broadly +2 - but with some reservations. There's inevitably a learning curve involved - and it means that there's a time for most of us (if we haven't been in a position to learn from somebody) when we hoover up all the written and internet material we can get our hands on. I for example found it very helpful to get the field scoped out, and in absence of local capability to find out how many standard tasks are handled by others - but these days don't buy magazines either, and am fairly selective in my internet engagements. There comes a point where most of it has been around once, and it starts to repeat, and the commercial bias starts to irritate and so on. Plus we get to the point where to progress we need to focus on a finer level of detail than the generic stuff that usually gets written about.

The internet is no different to normal society I guess - most of what you hear needs careful interpretation. It tends to be reasonably genuine stuff though - not the cream puff marketing adjusted stuff the mags run with. Which means that while getting miseld is easy it's as in normal life very much down to the individual to apply discretion. There's not much likelihood of filtering everything for correctness anyway...

I'm relatively speaking a fan of Chris Schwarz. Of course he's (like us all) got his limits in technical terms, and he is writing for mags - but his energy and ability to enthuse people is spectacular. It's a tough road he's on. Hard not to take flak at times since people tend to put writers up on a pedestal so they can knock them down again...

[David Weaver]

It's a tough road he's on.

One thing is for sure, and that's that nobody will make everyone happy with their approach.

[Pat Barry]

>>know more than the experts<<

Who are the experts? There are two here that I can think of. Rob Millard would be a blog expert, though I don't know that he updates his blog often. Same with the Anthony Hay cabinet shop blog. CS is not an expert (at least not in woodworking), which is exactly the point.

I agree with Dave Anderson's sentiments exactly, and can't blame him if 15 years has worn him out. And his sentiment about where to get information is spot on - either from actual professionals by observation or from older texts. Criticism is not only driven by envy, though that's the easy accusation to make. I'm not sure what there is to envy.

For those of us who started woodworking in the internet era and found out the people who we thought were experts actually are not, and who didn't give us very good information (compared to what a true professional/expert wood) but gave us a lot of it, it's more about wishing someone would've pointed us in a different direction to start. Everyone has their turning points as amateurs. That doesn't mean we're competent (i'm certainly not a "competent" woodworker), it just means we can identify when a route change made us better relative to what we were. For me, it was the first saw handle I posted. I got all rah rah, and I thought it looked OK. George pointed out several elements and expedited improvement (and satisfaction) in what I made. It was information that amateurs can't consistently provide. It made a drastic difference in my second saw. to the point that the second saw was almost acceptable as tasteful, and the first one clearly was not close.

Most of the rest of the stuff that gets kicked around on the blogs (the next new tool, the next new set of classes, etc...) is fatiguing, but it's the same as the magazine issue. If blogs are going to continue their viability, especially in line with the shows (or if they are selling something), they need too appeal to beginners. Eventually people with experience will go their own route and stop reading them, or read them only for entertainment.

I like Dave's advice, and my pondering on the professionals thread has a lot more to do with thinking that it's almost pointless for me and other amateurs to provide advice - I probably wouldn't take my own, and I'm not too offended when someone doesn't take mine, either - what credibility do I have? None, as it should be. The forums and careful attention to who knows what has proved to me who does, though.

I really don't think it's a bad thing to suggest what is, you may suggest what is to be something different, but I won't accuse you of envy because I have no idea what your goals are. I'd point out that something was totally incorrect if you were way off base, though, and that's what the forums are good for. People will do that less in print because it's permanent and they have relationships to keep. If I stopped reading here tomorrow, there are several people I'd keep in contact with from here, but I don't ever put the brakes on because i'm afraid to offend them.
Notice I used the word 'expert' in quotes just because of the connotation that CS is an expert is not agreed with by some people here, but on the other hand he is a respected 'expert' to the other 90+% of the woodworking world because of his position and his visibility. As far as my goals, its purely to point out the fact that many are non-accepting of the 'expertise' that exists outside the little sandbox we have here. I do tend to believe that CS knows what he is talking about even though I do not know the source of his information.

[David Weaver]

I understand what you mean. Randy Leffingwell was an "expert" on tractors, too, his publications have a lot of visibility. They're visually nice, lots of pictures, etc. And then there are folks like the late JR Hobbs. I don't know how often Leffingwell is accurate, maybe 90-95% of the time? I don't know if JR was ever wrong, but his answers could be considered definitive. That's kind of the same thing going on here. It's up to everyone to decide where they want to get their information, and if they are more of a Leffingwell kind of person than a JR Hobbs (JR could be very abrasive, and he bristled at the fact that a lot of writers used his information or wrote incorrect stuff about the same topics he did), that's OK as long as they don't say something like "Leffingwell's and Hobb's advice carry equal weight". Because they don't, even if Leffingwell is far easier and more entertaining for most people to digest.

[Adam Cruea]

Not sure if you are talking about a high angle bedding of the blade or the angle of the meeting of the shaving against the chip breaker.

From my experience since this has all been made clear, setting of the cap iron has more effect on reducing tear out than setting the mouth tight.

Of course as always,

297257

jtk

I was talking about the final angle that breaks the chip, period. My understanding is that you can make a high angle using a couple of methods.

1) High bedding angle for the iron
2) High bevel of chipbreaker
3) (only for BU planes) High bevel of iron

A single iron looks like this at the tip:
/

A capiron/blade will look like this at the tip (essentially):
\/

It's the leading edge (in the above graphic, the "\" that actual bends the chip far enough to cause it to break. So the higher that angle (what I'm calling a final angle), the faster the chip will be bent to failure and thus broken off (avoiding tear-out).

I view it kind of like a scraper, whose cutting edge looks like this (essentially):
_\

So the card scraper has an even higher final angle, which completely removes tear-out altogether (and secondarily only takes a minute shaving which helps reduce tear-out).

Make sense? I realize it's crappy ASCII art, but hopefully somewhat discernible.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Part of what I'm trying to get across is what is an insidious situation for a beginner. The beginner has developed a trust for the advice of a particular individual based on a conglomeration of their past advice, the length of time they have been working wood, and their number of posts on a particular forum. This time however the advisor has led them down the wrong path or given them bad advice. This is not necessarily because the advisor is/was wrong. It could be from a post of years before and the advisor has changed his views, it could be a misunderstanding of the question, or the situation advised on is similar to, but not exactly like the one the beginner is describing. The salient point is that there inherent dangers in accepting any advice from any internet source forum, blog, etc and that danger is particularly enhanced for the beginner who might not know the correct questions to ask or the terminology to use to present his request clearly. It seems to be that I've watched the advice on any particular topic cyclically change over the years more due to "soup de jour" than by any rational measure. There is a tendency to pile on and have a particular tool, technique, or "truth" become fashionable. The only guaranteed advice I would give the beginner is caveat emptor.

[george wilson]

I think Warren just wants credit to be given where credit is due. I see nothing wrong with that. The re discovery of correctly using the chip breaker is a valuable piece of information. One which I certainly had no idea of.

I may be wrong here,though. I went back and re read what I could readily find of CS's blogs. He does not seem to be trying to take credit for discovering how the chip breaker works. BUT,he only mentions Mr. Charlesworth as a source,IIRC. There was no mention of Warren,David,Kees,or any of the other people who have worked on this very valuable re discovery. If this is true,I can see why it is a problem for Warren.

I don't think wanting recognition for valuable contributions should be dismissed as chest beating,or any of the other terms ascribed to it. now that CS has embraced the chip breaker,he has gone to considerable effort at Lie Nielson to test it out on many woods. But,still no mention of where the knowledge sprang from. At the same time,no attempt to take the credit for himself. I think that sometimes the non admission of where knowledge came from just might lead the less informed astray. I'll leave it at that,admitting again that I may not have studied this matter thoroughly enough,and am willing to be corrected.

[Bob Strawn]

Chris Schwarz:
While a few people on the forums have burned this topic in effigy, I have found that a reasoned, historical-based discussing of this 18th-century device helps students immensely. Most woodworkers don’t have the patience to wade into the nasty discussions about double irons to extract the useful bits.
This lecture is about the useful bits. (And why Stanley needs to spanked for almost ruining the technology for us.)

There has been a reasoned and historical based discussion of this topic on various fora for over seven years. There has been historical and present day evidence presented by Todd Hughes, by me, by Steve Elliott, Chutaro Kato, Gary Blum, John Strawn, David Weaver, Bill Tindall, Kees van der Heiden, Wilbur Pan, and Jeff Burks (and more) For years Chris was denying or denigrating our testimony. It is insulting that he now compares himself to the source of this knowledge and paints himself as the voice of reason, knowledge and historical perspective.

Stanley needs to spanked for almost ruining the technology for us? Schwarz certainly tried to ruin it also.

I understand exactly where Warren comes from on this. I remember him being attacked on all sides, quite harshly. Not just the consensus, more like everyone, knew that Warren was wrong and that a bevel up thick single iron on a low bed angle or a 55 degree bed angle on an infill would always beat a double iron arrangement. The absolute knowledge was that the double iron was a mistake in history caused by cheap manufacture and slick salesmanship. I was in agreement and about to chime in against the double iron too, but for the realization, that I had not actually tested my beliefs. I took a Japanese plane, tuned it to precision, and tried the chip breaker at a range of positions. At that time I found that when I set the chip breaker to about half the thickness of the shaving from the cutting edge, magic started to happen. I had to test it again and again, but I was getting better results than anyone except Warren. I was actually nervous to come in and post that Warren was indeed correct, chip breakers worked and they worked well. There were some serious detractors who hunted out discussions of chip breakers on any forum and attacked with methods as harsh would be allowed to pass by the moderators. We had our few discussions with streams of vitriol spewed between our posts by several consistent detractors.

Truth is the consensus was that a slight back bevel was the way to go for sharpening. Ruler trick, that sort of thing dominated at the time. A back bevel is quite likely to ruin your attempts with a chip breaker. If you did not set up your blade exactly the way that Warren described you were not going to like a top iron used as a chip breaker. With your blade sharpened by using a "trick" you were not going to be happy with the results.

I do think that Chris has contributed some very good analysis and logic to the woodworking community, I respect his work. I also think that he, an a lot of other people should take a few important life lessons to heart over this. The lesson is not your wrong he's right. One big lesson is to test your beliefs. Sadly few folk do, and that is why they are sheep. :)

Now put yourself in Warren's shoes for a moment. You are standing up for reality against a hoard of naysayers who could test the argument with less than an hours work, but would rather just shoot you down at every possible opportunity. You know you are right, you use these methods daily, but when you make a post you are automatically attacked and insulted.

Along comes a popular and reasoned magazine editor. He decides to kick your horse too. He could have tested it in less time, but instead he puts together a very well written and convincing article that you know is based on hearsay and misunderstanding. You know this because you prove it every time you pick up a smoother. Worse than that, the respected expert uses dead solid evidence of a chip breaker doing magic as an argument against chip breakers.

Now in defense of CS, there is a hint that his subconscious mind was working on this issue. His mention of the six pack and the manner he does it leads me to think he had on another level put two and two together without yet coming up with the right answer consciously. I personally believe that this is not representative of CS' typical thinking, and I am quite sure he works hard not to be one of the sheep.

Warren, thank you for holding in there long enough for me to learn better woodworking. In the end your strength helped quite a few of us to improve our practice of the craft.

Bob

[Kees Heiden]

I was talking about the final angle that breaks the chip, period. My understanding is that you can make a high angle using a couple of methods.

1) High bedding angle for the iron
2) High bevel of chipbreaker
3) (only for BU planes) High bevel of iron

A single iron looks like this at the tip:
/

A capiron/blade will look like this at the tip (essentially):
\/

It's the leading edge (in the above graphic, the "\" that actual bends the chip far enough to cause it to break. So the higher that angle (what I'm calling a final angle), the faster the chip will be bent to failure and thus broken off (avoiding tear-out).

I view it kind of like a scraper, whose cutting edge looks like this (essentially):
_\

So the card scraper has an even higher final angle, which completely removes tear-out altogether (and secondarily only takes a minute shaving which helps reduce tear-out).

Make sense? I realize it's crappy ASCII art, but hopefully somewhat discernible.

No, I am afraid you are not correct on the mechanics of how these things work. I have explained it in detail in the article published on Steve Elliotts site:
http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/mechanics_of_chipbreakers.html

Very short: A high angle works because it doesn't wedge the fibers apart. A chipbreaker works because it pushes the shaving back into the wood.
A scraper looks a bit like a double iron plane, but with a very limited range and a very weak edge.
The beauty of the double iron plane is that it still cuts at 45 degrees, with all the pleasurable planing dynamics that comes with that.

[David Weaver]

Warren, thank you for holding in there long enough for me to learn better woodworking. In the end your strength helped quite a few of us to improve our practice of the craft.

Bob

Ditto that. There will be more high end planes with double irons because of Warren and the noise made on forums.

We (many of us) literally thought warren was trolling us back then. Because there were some serious trolling issues going all the way back to knots (and it wasn't just one person). There were times where I thought he was, I had no idea.

[george wilson]

Pat: just what is the 90% of the "other woodworking World" composed of? What percentage of the woodworking World are really competent wood workers? What percentage have mastered design?

I have seen an awful lot of competently made furniture,knives,jewelry,and other things that just sucked as far as their design was concerned.

[bob blakeborough]

Pat: just what is the 90% of the "other woodworking World" composed of? What percentage of the woodworking World are really competent wood workers? What percentage have mastered design?

I have seen an awful lot of competently made furniture,knives,jewelry,and other things that just sucked as far as their design was concerned.This is very true, but really, do we consider someone who mechanically speaking, is capable of building something properly, but maybe is not a designer, less skilled? There are painters who are capable of painting amazingly realistic subjects from a photo or subject, but they can't do the same thing without the subject matter in front of them. Does this mean they are less competent? In my mind they may not be as creative, but they are still absolutely able to speak with authority on how to build (or paint) things. You also have extremely creative people who can design anything, but now way in heck could they ever build it...

[David Weaver]

I'd consider them less complete if there was someone else with the same amount of technical skill but also with good design ability. ....." but can only make copies of other peoples work" is a line I've heard as a caveat when people describe someone who does great work but relies on copying other peoples' designs.

[bob blakeborough]

I'd consider them less complete if there was someone else with the same amount of technical skill but also with good design ability. ....." but can only make copies of other peoples work" is a line I've heard as a caveat when people describe someone who does great work but relies on copying other peoples' designs.
I would definitely agree on the "less complete" part, but that still does not mean that their physical woodworking skills (strictly mechanically speaking) are inferior. Therefor taking their advice on how to cut, or saw, or make a joint, or whatever the case may be, may still very much a reasonable course of action and that they still deserve consideration.

[David Weaver]

Yes, they could teach us a lot. I could stand to watch them, for sure. I guess it is more about whether or not someone is remembered. People who come up with designs never have trouble being remembered. People who are excellent at copying them are not often remembered unless they do something untoward, like get caught taking credit for someone else's design or do something illegal (like faking vintage paintings, etc).

[george wilson]

The best craftsmen are those who are able to both design and build things. That's just the way it is. It can't be denied. Chippendale was one of them. Others who could not design relied upon his design books. The Anthony Hay Cabinet Shop in the museum did. But,it was their job to make accurate reproductions,not design them. I had that responsibility as tool maker. Not what I REALLY wanted to do,but that was my job. I designed my things on my own time. Certainly competent workers deserve consideration. I have friends like that who I give and make tools for. And,I like them. But,they'd be better if they could also design well.

David is quite correct: Those who just copy,be it in woodworking,or music,are not remembered. I personally knew banjo players who could play rings around Scruggs, but copied his style. Scruggs originated the style. He will be remembered.

Those who can design things,but not build them are called designers.:) They would also be better off if they could also build. I have made quite a few things for a customer who designed what he wanted me to make. He made some features that were an absolute PAIN to accomplish(and could have been better designed,too). He got big time,great paying jobs though,so I made the stuff.

[Brian Holcombe]

Design is the most torturous aspect of woodworking for me, I pour over the details for months before beginning a project. Quite frankly one should design, build, then redesign and build again, but I never do. I just design and redesign and redesign and redesign..then build.

[Jim Koepke]

Warren and all others, thanks for your information on chip breakers and standing up when others were trying to knock you down.


Design is the most torturous aspect of woodworking for me, I pour over the details for months before beginning a project. Quite frankly one should design, build, then redesign and build again, but I never do. I just design and redesign and redesign and redesign..then build.

I kind of do that. Many times a project is started with just a general idea of a goal. Then what ever wood is available is measured to figure out how to not end up with a lot of scrap. Then the joinery is thought about, chosen and sawdust starts a flyin'.

Corrections are made along the way. Parts are trimmed to fit and it eventually comes together.

Currently my #1 project is another potting bench. My notes and templets from previous builds come into play. Getting it refined to allow cutting parts without having to work as much at fitting saves time.

Am I a designer? NO WAY! I just bumble through, remind myself to do the math and end up with a finished product that works and sometimes even looks proportional and gets pleasing comments from people at the farmers market.

Not an expert either, just an aggregator of knowledge found here and elsewhere to help me through with what seems fun to do.

It drives my wife crazy that I often work without plans.

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

I make fairly well worked out plans prior to starting most of my projects. It helps, saves quite a bit of trouble on occasion.

However, some projects can be worked out on the fly, I felt like I did that with my humidors for the most part and they are great. Sometimes just hammering away at design so often just leaves you with some of the right imagery floating around in your brain when you are working this stuff out on the fly.

I was reading and interview with the architect who designed the Rare book library at Yale and he basically described his process as soaking up good design in fields outside of architecture was incredibly helpful to him in architecture. I feel the same can be applied here.

[Pat Barry]

Pat: just what is the 90% of the "other woodworking World" composed of? What percentage of the woodworking World are really competent wood workers? What percentage have mastered design?
I have seen an awful lot of competently made furniture,knives,jewelry,and other things that just sucked as far as their design was concerned.
Hi George, what I meant was the 90+% of the woodworking world that isn't part of the SMC club.

And yes, design is art. As art, it is not appreciated the same by all. For example Salvador Dali - I don't get it. I'd take something by an old Flemish master over a Dali any day.

[Brian Holcombe]

Design is not always surrealism and it's not always divorced from the rational.

[george wilson]

I maintain that the 90% you refer to are beginners or semi beginners,Pat. Those who do not have sufficient information to make judgements on their own. They will follow a perceived leader. Someone who likes to write articles. Eric Sloane and Irving Sloane come to mind. Irving Sloane came to my shop. He had written a book in guitar making. He was looking for a shop he could photograph doing repair work. We didn't do that there. We made new instruments,demonstrating the trade to the public. I sent him to Martin Co..I was VERY surprised at the BASIC questions he began to ask me. He asked me if I REALLY believed in that STUFF about tuning violin tops and backs!! Every violin maker worth his salt does that!!! It prevents wolf notes. Later,I began to see that he would build ONE instrument,taking careful pictures the whole way through. Then,he'd make a book out of it. Soon,he published another book that had 3 or 4 simple instruments in it. He only ever made ONE of each. I must say,it was a smart way to make money,if not the best way to give advanced information about instrument making. There are more like him out there. They don't do woodworking for a living,they write for a living. I personally know a few more who do exactly that,though one is a leather worker. Well,I can't blame them for being smart! But,they are not real master craftsmen.

Have you noticed the number of drawings available for the simplest of projects? And just about all of the magazine articles cater to those who are cutting their first dovetail joint,or similar. I get so tired of seeing magazine articles,often written by beginners themselves,who like to see their names in print,who cater to beginning woodworkers. I refer to no one in particular here. I'm just telling the truth. Yet,I have striven to keep the beginners from getting wrong information. I suppose I recall how difficult it was for me in the beginning to get any information on guitar building. Back in 1954 there were no books available,and Alaska was a cultural vacuum. Hunting,fishing,and logging were the chief activities up there. It took me a very long time,and many failures to learn.

P.S.: Irving Sloane died a while back. Vintage Guitar Magazine eulogized him as "A pioneer guitar builder". What a load of hooey.

[Adam Cruea]

No, I am afraid you are not correct on the mechanics of how these things work. I have explained it in detail in the article published on Steve Elliotts site:
http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/mechanics_of_chipbreakers.html

Very short: A high angle works because it doesn't wedge the fibers apart. A chipbreaker works because it pushes the shaving back into the wood.
A scraper looks a bit like a double iron plane, but with a very limited range and a very weak edge.
The beauty of the double iron plane is that it still cuts at 45 degrees, with all the pleasurable planing dynamics that comes with that.

Does anyone actually have video of this happening?

Maybe I'm being to literal here (which is highly possible), but you can't push a shaving back into the wood; calling it a shaving implies it's been separated from the wood and already removed. From Merriam-Websters:


: a very thin piece removed from something with a sharp tool

My gathering from that article kind of clarifies things a little, though. I'm not the biggest fan of academic-esque papers, so perhaps my annoyance with that is making it harder to understand.

From what I gather, the breaker breaks the plane the shaving was taking (this causes the curl), radically redirecting it, putting pressure through the wood before the cutting edge can separate the wood. So while the cutting edge will always wedge the fibers, it's more of wedging/separating compressed wood. Seem better? (I'm just restating what I read to make sure I understand it, not to swipe someone's idea).

[Jim Koepke]

Does anyone actually have video of this happening?

Have you seen the video linked in some of the discussion about setting the cap iron?

http://vimeo.com/41372857




From what I gather, the breaker breaks the plane the shaving was taking (this causes the curl), radically redirecting it, putting pressure through the wood before the cutting edge can separate the wood. So while the cutting edge will always wedge the fibers, it's more of wedging/separating compressed wood. Seem better? (I'm just restating what I read to make sure I understand it, not to swipe someone's idea).

That sounds about the same as my understanding of this.

If the chip breaker is set too far from the action there is too much flex in the shaving to provide any 'back pressure' on the wedging action. In effect this 'back pressure' prevents the shaving from lifting ahead of the blade.

Another wood working phenomena comes to mind which helps my understanding of this. It is the wedging action of a chisel when cutting dovetails. The chisel's bevel causes the chisel to move toward the back of the blade when chopping dovetails. This is why one doesn't start chopping right on the line.

This wedging force, imo, is present more in a bevel up configuration than in a bevel down set up. Please note this is just opinion and I have not taken the time to set up actual tests nor are there any plans for me to do such.

BTW, some of the books I read about joinery when I first started in woodworking advised to start on the line. Must have been some of those non-woodworking writers George mentioned.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

Have you noticed the number of drawings available for the simplest of projects? And just about all of the magazine articles cater to those who are cutting their first dovetail joint,or similar. I get so tired of seeing magazine articles,often written by beginners themselves,who like to see their names in print,who cater to beginning woodworkers. I refer to no one in particular here. I'm just telling the truth. Yet,I have striven to keep the beginners from getting wrong information. I suppose I recall how difficult it was for me in the beginning to get any information on guitar building. Back in 1954 there were no books available,and Alaska was a cultural vacuum. Hunting,fishing,and logging were the chief activities up there. It took me a very long time,and many failures to learn.
Yes. It turns out that most woodworkers want plans for their projects. I bet you don't and most experienced woodworkers don't either. In fact, I really dislike plans myself. I'd rather figure it all out (the hard way) but that's the engineer in me - LOL. As a result I have numerous design tweaks as I go along and it (usually) all works out fine in the end. Know one needs to know that a drawer width that was planned to be 24" actually came out to be 23" due to a cutting mistake, ie: forgetting to account for the material thickness when cutting dovetail joints. In the end it really doesn't matter to me that it wasn't 24" exactly. I know what to do to adjust for it.

[John Coloccia]

The best craftsmen are those who are able to both design and build things.

Try working as an engineer for 20 years.

me: "I don't think that will be stiff enough."
him: "I did the FE analysis. It's plenty stiff."
me: "Look, we have some stuff laying around. Let's just mock it up really quickly."
him: "I've been doing this for 20 years. It will be fine."
me: "I've been playing with this particular device in the lab for 1 year. It won't work."

several months later
manager: "Why does it loose power when the other slide moves?"
me: "It's not stiff enough."
manager: "Can you fix it?"
me: "No, but I can maybe take it apart, run up to my hobby shop, buy some engine ISO mounts, drill out the mounting holes and try to isolate the platforms."
VP: "NOOOOOOO....don't you dare touch it and drill holes!! You'll never get it to work again!"
me: "It's not a big deal. I built the darn thing once. It should be easier this time."
manager: "Don't touch it. Find some other way."

So I leave work, go to the hobby shop and buy iso mounts. When everyone else is gone for the night, I take the stupid thing apart and isolate just one side. Next morning it's back working.

VP: "How's it going"
me: "Good...I got one side working."
VP: "How did you fix it."
me: "I took it apart and installed isolation mounts."
VP: "What??? BUT I SAID....uhm...did you say it's all working?"
me: "Yes."
VP: "Quick quick...do the other side too, but don't let ***** see you. He'll kill me if he knew I let you change anything."

::::sigh:::: The situations change, but it seemed like I spent most of my time either arguing with people and being the "loose cannon", or quietly trying to get along and then having to untangle the mess when it eventually made it back to my desk. I eventually just got sick of pushing on a rope and left the field. Well, I ended up always doing way more than I got payed to do, they still have cushy jobs and now I'm STILL busting my behind for a lot less money, but the only idiot I have to deal with every day is ME, so it's not so bad :)

We'd have much better products if there were more people out there that knew maybe just a LITTLE something outside their main discipline. You know, get in the lab every now and then and actually try to use the stuff you're pumping out. Hang out with the guys in the machine shop a bit...or maybe with the software guys, or the operators. The handful of engineers and managers I've worked with over the years that do that were always such a pleasure to work with. Everything always seemed easy and fun when we got to work with each other. I don't think it's a fluke that companies like Lee Valley continue to pump out really useable and well thought out products. It's obvious that SOMEONE over there has really good instincts for what works and what doesn't both for manufacturing and for the user.

[Kees Heiden]

It's better explained in my article Adam, but let's give it another try.

297389

Imagine a shaving riding up the back of the blade and then suddenly hitting upon that capiron. This is a restriction to the flow of the shaving. A restriction means a force in the reverse direction. The only path available for this force is the shaving. So when you look at my drawing, you see the force pictured as a blue line. The point where tearout could happen is the red circle. That's what I mean by "the shaving is pushed back into the wood". The force supports the shaving.

A better force would be in the vertical direction and that is what you thing will happen with a tight mouth. But a mouth tight enough to actually prevent tearout, also forms a restriction for the shaving. You can feel this in the force needed to push the plane. So maybe the actual mechanism of a tight mouth and a chipbreaker are similar.

[Pat Barry]

pushing on a rope LOL - I use that all the time

[Jim Koepke]

We'd have much better products if there were more people out there that knew maybe just a LITTLE something outside their main discipline. You know, get in the lab every now and then and actually try to use the stuff you're pumping out.

I didn't last as long as you. In a metallurgy class we were testing rods for tensile strength. I got a little bit of a chewing for not getting a high enough fail point. It seemed making the material seem stronger than it actually is was the 'proper' way to test. I dropped out of that class soon after that and went into art and electronics.

Every time some building or road fails and the 'experts' are baffled this test comes to mind. How many things end up being designed by people who are just reading inaccurate specs?

One time my employment was as a drafter at a pump manufacturer. One particular product had a history of a rather violent self disassembly problem. I did a few calculations of moving part lengths and found many of them to be perfect resonant nodes of the running speed. I presented this to the head engineer and he told me I didn't know what I was talking about and resonance had nothing to do with it. I didn't stay there much longer.

I have worked with some great engineers and some who couldn't see outside of the box let alone being able to see inside the box.

jtk

[John Coloccia]

Oddly enough, Jim, one of the more common paths to get into things like instrument building seems to be starting as an engineer or designer of some sort. I can't even count the number of people I've met doing stuff like this, and when we compare stories they're all eerily similar. These fringe, crafty sorts of vocations are like the town dog catcher rounding up all the strays. We should have our own support group.

[Brian Holcombe]

Hah, so true. I have a career of constant negotiation with all parties to get things done. So, in my hobby I turn down pretty much everything I dislike, which makes for far fewer commissions, but far more enjoyable ones.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Jim and John, You guys are cracking me up. My favorite story is being called into a meeting at one of my customers because a product destined for a EU customer failed VDE emissions testing. The players were the mechanical engineer who called me, the project manager, the buyer, and the marketing manager. I proposed a solution which I knew would work and gave them a price for the EMI gasket needed. It was more than they expected and there was no budget for it. The meeting degenerated into name calling, recriminations, literal fist shaking and threats of violence between the engineering manager and the marketing guy over blame and most importantly whose budget the fix would come out of. As I was leaving I received a very embarrassed apology from my engineering contact about management behavior. All of the standard crap went on. "It's your fault for promising too short a delivery" "If you guys knew how to design and weren't incompetent..." "Why did you ship from the beta build before we tested for emissions?"

[ian maybury]

I guess the trouble starts when people sidestep reality to build one size fits all intellectual castles in the air - and then proceed to get attached to said castles and/or make commitments/build power bases off them. The devil as the man said is always in the detail, and reality always eventually must bite.

We're not of course immune around here to the problem either. It's for most of us the basis of the human condition….

[Jim Koepke]

Hah, so true. I have a career of constant negotiation with all parties to get things done. So, in my hobby I turn down pretty much everything I dislike, which makes for far fewer commissions, but far more enjoyable ones.

My father's approach taught me to listen to everyone's story no matter how crazy it may sound.

Then if it is like some of the folks at the farmers market I direct them to the other woodworker there saying he is better set up to do that kind of work.

A couple of times people came by that did seem a bit odd but that didn't bother me. My wife thought one woman was way out there. She almost convinced me to not bother with the woman's request, almost. The next week she came back and spent $270 with us.

We get a lot of requests for different things. If they are not a big gamble and within my ability they get made. Often the folks may not return. Almost all of the items have been bought by others. Some have actually become regular items that sell well.

With many things it is often possible to learn from others with whom you may not agree. Even some of the 'experts' who put me off at times have little bits of useful information to glean.

jtk

[Tom Vanzant]

Dave, our sales group would regularly promise delivery of a new product at a certain based on when the customer wanted it...without consulting engineering or purchasing about design and parts availability, let alone testing prior to assembly and delivery. This was in an industry that does not tolerate failure in use. We were going to cost the salesman his bonus​ because the engineering group could not produce a new product in half the lead-time of the commercial parts, yet to be determined. My BP is going up just remembering it, and that was 7-8 years ago. Not an isolated case either.

[John Coloccia]

Dave, our sales group would regularly promise delivery of a new product at a certain based on when the customer wanted it...without consulting engineering or purchasing about design and parts availability, let alone testing prior to assembly and delivery. This was in an industry that does not tolerate failure in use. We were going to cost the salesman his bonus​ because the engineering group could not produce a new product in half the lead-time of the commercial parts, yet to be determined. My BP is going up just remembering it, and that was 7-8 years ago. Not an isolated case either.

I actually had this conversation in a fairly high level meeting once. Sort of explains all at once just why I was a bad fit for the corporate world:

them: "John, report on that new feature. How long will it take?"

me: "We can do it in 4 weeks."

them: "WHAT??? 4 weeks??? That's impossible. You should be able to do it in a few days. We need it for a test coming up in two weeks. We need a better estimate"

me: "4 weeks is the best, real estimate I have. It will take a few days just to do the final testing and release because what you're asking for isn't straight forward. I think it will take 4 weeks."

grand poobah: "It can't take 4 weeks. I want this working and in the lab early next week. Period. Just do it, end of story. I want a report everyday on your status."

me: "OK. I can give you an update right now where we are."

few seconds of silence

grand poobah: "Go ahead."

me: "As of today, we've fallen 3 weeks behind schedule."

I guess I could have handled that more tactfully.

[Brian Holcombe]

My father's approach taught me to listen to everyone's story no matter how crazy it may sound.

Then if it is like some of the folks at the farmers market I direct them to the other woodworker there saying he is better set up to do that kind of work.

A couple of times people came by that did seem a bit odd but that didn't bother me. My wife thought one woman was way out there. She almost convinced me to not bother with the woman's request, almost. The next week she came back and spent $270 with us.

We get a lot of requests for different things. If they are not a big gamble and within my ability they get made. Often the folks may not return. Almost all of the items have been bought by others. Some have actually become regular items that sell well.

With many things it is often possible to learn from others with whom you may not agree. Even some of the 'experts' who put me off at times have little bits of useful information to glean.

jtk

I refer people pretty commonly to a local shop which has a broader range of capabilities in design aesthetic. I'm quite rigid in that I will only sell my own original design work to people. I wont copy or work in the style of another for a commission.

I've made one piece in the Nakashima style for myself, but I would not sell it ever.

[Adam Cruea]

Have you seen the video linked in some of the discussion about setting the cap iron?

http://vimeo.com/41372857




That sounds about the same as my understanding of this.

If the chip breaker is set too far from the action there is too much flex in the shaving to provide any 'back pressure' on the wedging action. In effect this 'back pressure' prevents the shaving from lifting ahead of the blade.

Another wood working phenomena comes to mind which helps my understanding of this. It is the wedging action of a chisel when cutting dovetails. The chisel's bevel causes the chisel to move toward the back of the blade when chopping dovetails. This is why one doesn't start chopping right on the line.

This wedging force, imo, is present more in a bevel up configuration than in a bevel down set up. Please note this is just opinion and I have not taken the time to set up actual tests nor are there any plans for me to do such.

BTW, some of the books I read about joinery when I first started in woodworking advised to start on the line. Must have been some of those non-woodworking writers George mentioned.

jtk

THAT'S THE VIDEO! A tad academic for my purposes and a little verbose, but that's the video I was thinking I saw before and I was trying to explain. For some reason, I thought I saw that in a dream.

And yeah, I've heard something similar about starting on the line about doing dovetails. I saw the chisel moving backwards and started trying to counter the bevel, then just said screw it and I try to either make notches for the bevel or I just keep it in front of the line.

BTW, Kees. . .the video Jim's linked has the narrator saying the chip is getting compressed by the cap iron. It's around 11:20. If you watch the video, you can see that with an 80* bevel, the cap iron is actually causing the wood to get compressed right in front of the leading edge of the blade (around 12:50). Also, if you watch behind the blade, you can see the wood slightly decompress and expand (though this might just be an optical illusion). I think where we're getting hung up is some minor semantics differences (I really do hate English for this) and when forces get talked about I think of it in terms of physics and specifics. I think the guilty force you might be looking for here would be centripetal force, not lateral force. The centripetal force is causing the inside of the chip to compress and the outside to decompress just due to the distance each has to travel (if you watch the video, the wood against the breaker appears to be moving much faster than the wood farther away from the breaker).

Anyway, semantics. I'm being way too literal and thinking of this from more of a physics standpoint than anything.

[Kees Heiden]

I think we are more in agreement then I thought Adam!

That compression you see on the video is exactly what I am talking about. When you measure shaving thickness and you compare it to the actual amount of wood removed, you will easilly see a 30% to 50% difference.

I'm not sure about the centrifugal forces though. These Japanese guys were planing at a very slow speed.

One big difference I see with the high angle panes is the difference in vertical force. This wedging force on the woodfibers is much less in a high angle plane, compared to a 45 degree plane.