Square edges on boards but how?

[Tony Caro]

I marvel at people that can put a square edge on a board by hand planing without jigs or any aids. I have practised this skill for many months and sometimes i get it, most of the time i don't. It seems to me that you must start off at 90 degrees to the face side and rigorously maintain this position to ensure that you finish up with a square edge throughout the entire length of the board. For those that can do this, how do you know you've got the plane sitting at 90 degrees to the face side when you start? How do you keep the plane at this constant angle throughout? By feel, by sight, what cues do you use? I am right-handed and i tend to lean the plane to the left slightly even though it looks perpendicular to the face side to me as i plane. I should also say that i curl 3 fingers on my left hand against the face side as a guide.

[David Weaver]

Joint until the board looks straight and square, then take a square and check the board for square and put a pencil tick at the high spots.

Make a through pass by biasing the plane on the sides of the board that have your tick marks. By biasing, I mean literally moving the plane left or right so that you're only cutting with one side.

Make sure your plane is cutting evenly on the left and the right. On planing the other side to a width mark, make your ticks a couple of passes before you hit your width mark so that you don't overshoot.

Study what your natural error is. Mine was to plane the near edge low on the left and the far side low on the right.

[Tony Caro]

Thanks David, i will try this, only problem is that i'm not always consistent with my out-of-square planing.

[Pat Barry]

If you really want to get the board edge square and that's your biggest concern then what you need to do is use a shooting technique for the long edge. Thats pretty simple and eliminates the variability of the freehand method. I'm sure there are examples of this method posted somewhere - maybe even on this website - I just don't have a chance to dig one up for you. How long are these edges you are trying to true up?

[David Weaver]

Thanks David, i will try this, only problem is that i'm not always consistent with my out-of-square planing.

I think it's a matter of doing it some more, then, and getting a feel for vertical. If you have to for a while, walk with the plane along a board instead of retracting and extending your arms. You'll find that you can get an error left or right that way but not both. That worked for me until I got a better feel of making a stroke and staying vertical the whole time. I still think about keeping the plane vertical on the near side of the stroke, too, or i'll lean it toward me.

I expect now when I feel a board that's vertical, that I could work with it without any additional correction (like for m&T joints) and that's usually the case. I don't always check everything with a square, if the error is big enough to cause a problem, the more you joint edges, the better you'll be able to see it with the exception of sometime grain running a certain direction can make a board that feels square (and is square) look a little out.

Pencil marks and biasing the plane are a good way to start, though. I check with a square in three places now and just remember where the board is off, but I still put tick marks on a board sometimes if I'm tired (tired makes it hard to remember things on the fly).

[Kees Heiden]

If the boards aren't too thick you can try match planing. It was a surprise for me how well that works. Being off a few degrees to the left or right doesn't matter in this case. Of course, when you are of to the right at the start and to the left at the end, this isn't going to help.

[Sean Hughto]

If you are jointing to glue up a panel, consider match planing - i.e., planing two board at once so that any deviation from 90 is cancelled when the two are brought together.

As Pat said, shooting - such as on your bench top - works well.

There are planes, like the LN edge plane for example.

There are fences for jointers, and home made ones are not hard to fashion as well.

Keep in mind that perfectly square is not necessary in many applications - no will care if a table edge is 88 degrees and not 90.

[Tony Caro]

The boards can vary from a few inches to several feet. I know i can use a shooting board but i've spent a considerable amount of time trying to develop this skill, just like to know how others do it.

[Zach Dillinger]

David Weaver has an excellent description of the process. To use his phrase, my natural error is / was to allow my body to turn towards the board just a hair too much, which takes some of the supposedly forward force of the plane and causes the plane to roll away from me slightly. This leads to an edge that slopes away from me. I had to really focus on keeping my shoulders as perpendicular to the board as possible, using my hands in the proper way, and learning to trust my plane until I developed the instinct to do it properly.

[Sean Hughto]

I think we are telling you. :rolleyes:

[David Weaver]

e. I had to really focus on keeping my shoulders as perpendicular to the board as possible ......until I developed the instinct to do it properly.

I think this is something (Square shoulders) that is worth mentioning a second time. When I make a through shaving after getting the edge square (to get to a width mark or to finish off getting an edge or slightly sprung), I do exactly the same thing, and turning the shoulders square is part of "walking the plane". It allows you to stand straight up and feel vertical better than if you're oriented more toward the board.

This is all details to talk about, but once the instinct is there, it's trivial and habitual, and you can ramp up the shaving thickness and get to where you need to be (either to remove rough wood or to work to a mark) very quickly.

[Brian Holcombe]

I find that being perfectly square helps along the way as your completing your project.

the most important aspect of edge jointing when you are matching is flatness. Make certain that you are making the edge flat and not embellishing the curve. 88 and 92 degrees still come together at 180 but two curves do not make a straight line.

I have a handful of precision ground straight edges of various lengths and feeler gauges that I use for this, you can also use your bench for a quick-check if it is actually flat.

[Shawn Pixley]

It just takes practice and repetition. I don't bias the plane as much as others, but will slightly "rock the plane" to get a square junction. Don't over reach on longer boards. If you get your body out of position / balance, you'll create a twist in the planed surface. I test with straight edge and square every few strokes when I am close to completion of the square planed edge.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Disclaimer: I struggle with this sometimes.

While jointing an edge, I expect that you want to end with two things.



Edge that is square to the face
straight / flat edge along the length; no curves.


For generating an edge that is perpendicular to the face, something like this can help; a jointing fence.

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=41716&cat=1,41182

Sometimes I find that it helps if I reference one hand against the board (the front of the plane). It certainly helps to check often to see how I am doing, since I can easily and quickly destroy a square edge.

The second skill is generating a flat edge. Recently, I managed to generate a curve. I think that I started with the center too low, and then suddenly (it seemed), the center was too high. Create or purchase a straight edge that you can use to test as you work. I own one that is probably five feet long.

[Warren Mickley]

I marvel at people that can put a square edge on a board by hand planing without jigs or any aids.

I think that I could have you planing an edge this afternoon with my plane. What you need is a very careful camber on the iron. You want the camber so that when you take maybe a .002 cut with the plane the edges don't cut at all. When you take a .001 cut, it cuts only in the center. I am not talking about just a rounding of the corners, I am talking about a very gentle curve all the way across. That way you can adjust where you remove material from the edge by a slight movement side to side. If you need to remove wood from the far side you just move the plane a little to that side, center on that edge. If you need to remove wood from the near side at the back end and from the far side at the front end, you plane diagonally with the center of the plane going form one edged to the other over the course of the cut. Body position has more to do with fatigue; it is not so important for a trivial operation like shooting an edge.

The easiest way to put the appropriate curve on the iron is to put your jigs and your flattening contraptions in a drawer and learn to manage the stone while sharpening. So that the stone gives the curve. This takes a lot more skill than just using the plane. It is easier to buy a disk than to learn to play the piano.

[lowell holmes]

It seems that I read about the iron camber when there was Woodworking magazine. It's an old technique.

[David Weaver]

It seems that I read about the iron camber when there was Woodworking magazine. It's an old technique.

It should be on the jointer and the smoother, similarly (for different reasons - but gentle curve as warren says so that the cut quality isn't affected like it often is if corners are clipped, and so the control of correction with the jointer biasing is there).

Managing a stone, as warren describes it, leaves an iron that way without any additional work. It's another good reason to use (narrower, like 2") oilstones and irons that sharpen well with them. A wider stone is more difficult to manage the gentle curve.

I've never had an issue match planing with an iron that was set up that way, either.

[Derek Cohen]

What works for me ...

The only bench plane blades I have that are straight across are on the jointer. When jointing boards for a panel, my preference is to match plane. A straight blade is more predictable here.

A straight edge also enables the use of a fence, if you wish. Also, it allows for easier use of the jointer as a shooter (on the bench top).

I just find a straight blade on a jointer more versatile.

If simply planing the edge of a panel, such as a table top, it is more important that full shavings are taken than exactly square ones. The side needs to be flat. Slightly out-of-square is difficult to detect. A faceted side is not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Daniel Rode]

I struggle with this as well but I feel like I'm headed in the right direction. I will often plane a bit of a hump rather than getting the edge perfectly flat. For me, it's easy to detect and easy to fix. It mostly a matter of not applying pressure correctly through the stroke. Practice should fix that issue.

Getting the edge square has been harder for me. I'm always off to one side, then I correct but moving plane to one side or another (lightly cambered iron) to correct but I overshoot and angle off in the opposite direction. It's consistent along the length, so I think some work on my mechanics might do the trick.

This is one of those muscle memory things, IMO and those sort of things are mostly fixed through practice.

[Pat Barry]

a trivial operation like shooting an edge.
This statement makes it sound like getting a perfectly square edge is easy to do. Harumph! I disagree completely with the muscle memory / body position / blah blah b s. This is probably the most difficult thing to do by hand. It may be that once you have done this over the course of a lifetime its trivial but not so for most of us. In fact that is specifically why the LV add-on, the shooting technique, the match planing technique, etc. All those solutions are to make this very difficult task simpler and more predictable. I think we should really question how perfectly square the result needs to be, however. Maybe just close is good enough. Why would it need to be perfect? Certainly the match planing method with a straight blade as Derek suggests solves the edge jointing for a glueup problem pretty well.

[Daniel Rode]

IDK - I'm not particularly graceful or coordinated and I can nearly do it after a small amount of practice. I've learned the way Warren describes using a cambered blade. I think if I were to dedicate an hour per day for a couple of weeks, I'd have it down cold. Even now I can mostly get the edge jointed, it just takes me a while and several re-tries.

If I can do it, anyone can.

Maybe it's not the same for everyone. Some things people describe as easy have been hard for me, other things that I thought would be hard turned out to be easy.

[David Weaver]

This statement makes it sound like getting a perfectly square edge is easy to do. Harumph! I disagree completely with the muscle memory / body position / blah blah b s. This is probably the most difficult thing to do by hand.

It's just a matter of experience and forcing yourself to do it, like many of the things are. Most of the videos don't do enough to stress that the difference between point A and B is experience, and not just knowing a bag full of tricks, though the bag full of tricks can solve issues in some cases.

The fundamental issue of woodworking by hand when you know someone else can do something is to look at the details of your problems, and solve them yourself by experience, and by knowing what you want to get (in terms of results). When you solve the little details on your own, then you own the knowledge of it, and if you have a layoff and don't do something for a while, you can quickly get back to where you were.

[Steve Voigt]

This statement makes it sound like getting a perfectly square edge is easy to do. Harumph! I disagree completely with the muscle memory / body position / blah blah b s. This is probably the most difficult thing to do by hand. It may be that once you have done this over the course of a lifetime its trivial but not so for most of us. In fact that is specifically why the LV add-on, the shooting technique, the match planing technique, etc. All those solutions are to make this very difficult task simpler and more predictable. I think we should really question how perfectly square the result needs to be, however. Maybe just close is good enough. Why would it need to be perfect? Certainly the match planing method with a straight blade as Derek suggests solves the edge jointing for a glueup problem pretty well.

I won't say that it's easy; that's for each person to decide. We all have different abilities. But I would say that it is a fundamental skill that must be mastered if you want to do handwork efficiently. Match planing and long grain shooting have their place, but most of the time, just grabbing the board vertically in a vise and jointing the edge is the most efficient way. Jointing fences are crutches and I would discourage anyone from using them.

I learned to do it the way David and Zach described. I corrected out-of square edges by planing half the edge, as Dave mentioned, or by putting extra pressure on the high side. This works fine. But using camber, as Warren describes, is easier. I wish I had learned that first. It's also more predictable, and easier to adjust in very small increments, which can help if your boards are just barely wide enough.

The stuff about body position is not nonsense. Even if you use a cambered iron, if you don't pay attention to body position, you will always end up with twisted edges, and you will have to plane diagonally to correct them. That's trickier than correcting a consistently out-of-square edge.

I'd even say that most of the problems people have with basic technique are due to issues with body position and movement. If you rigorously observe and critique what you are doing with your body at each moment, your technique will improve almost overnight.

[David Weaver]

I should've clarified the cambered edge that warren mentioned before I said something about the iron cutting evenly on both sides. that evenly on both sides stuff relies on camber, and is why I'd suggested biasing the plane by literally moving it to the left or right. If the iron isn't set with equal cutting depth tapering off on both sides, then you're fighting the plane all the way. If it is evenly set with camber, then moving it not only biases pressure, but it actually cuts deeper on the part of the edge that needs correction. To do that bias without camber is harder and not as productive. I guess it probably works, but my irons are profiled as warrens are, it is a good natural bias in the sharpened edge to introduce into everything.

I've used a straight iron in the past for match planing, but decided that I didn't want to go to the trouble of changing it out and have never noticed any problem with any boards narrow enough to actually match plane (as in boards 5/4 or narrower), so I never use a straight iron - it gets in the way of planing a square edge when you're not matching a joint. I rarely shoot anything, but I'm sure a gradually cambered iron would shoot joints just fine, too.

A fundamental issue here though is specifically measuring what the small problems are and addressing them one at a time, that's part of why experience is more helpful than tutoring. Small improvements are painless, and you "own" them as you make them. Knowledge that you own through experience isn't transient, and it doesn't obligate you to watch videos, read books or pull out outlines to refresh it.

[Reinis Kanders]

I have been using LV addon fence on BU jointer, but find that it can be finicky to setup the fence to have it stay that way because of the bumps and what not and it always needs tweaking if it is re-attached. Because I do not trust it I end up having to check for square anyways.
Lot of these hand tool techniques are about practice and confidence. Not irrational confidence, but there needs to be some. I am a decent (but older) basketball player and once one reaches certain proficiency in a sport or technique then lot of success can stem from how confident one feels when doing a repetitive motion (e.g. shooting free throws / sawing dovetails. etc.).

[Tony Caro]

Thanks for those comments, I suspect that a small adjustment to body position could do the trick but have read about people that can sense squareness with their fingers, I have tried to conceptualise this and even practice it but can't do this. Best I can do is try and detect squareness by sight between the face edge and jointed edge but that I find that difficult, 90 degrees is 90 degrees, it has to be spot on. As I mentioned before I know there are aids and match planing you can use but I'm strictly talking about the skill of hand planing a square edge without any aids.

[Chris Parks]

A couple of things I noted when I was learning this skill. Firstly observation of the shaving is to me paramount, you need to mentally link the shaving width to how far out of square the edge was before you started. next is the height of the work piece to yourself, too high or low will make a big difference to your stance and changing pressure on the plane. It is a skill that requires repetitive practise and apprenticeships were undertaken for a reason, to learn stuff like this.

[Tony Caro]

A couple of things I noted when I was learning this skill. Firstly observation of the shaving is to me paramount, you need to mentally link the shaving width to how far out of square the edge was before you started. next is the height of the work piece to yourself, too high or low will make a big difference to your stance and changing pressure on the plane. It is a skill that requires repetitive practise and apprenticeships were undertaken for a reason, to learn stuff like this.
Agree Chris, height of workpiece is a significant factor in getting this to work properly. Good point regarding the shaving, I have no problem getting a full width shaving but I unconsciously start on an
angle and maintain it so the workpiece is planed flat but it is out of square. Unless you are planing square to the edge initially, that original shaving won't be giving you the correct information.

[Bill Moser]

Don't get me wrong -- being able to plane an edge absolutely true & square to the face, with hand tools, and without jigs, is a good skill to have. But just as a general goal, it seems like it's sort of like wanting to be the fastest tortoise. It seems to me that if you just want to get on with the woodworking, it's important to understand the role of the board in question to the rest of the completed piece of furniture.


If it's part of a table top, then the squareness of the edge is not very important, as long as you match plane. It's also useful if you plane the boards slightly concave lengthwise, so they glue up nicely.


If the board is to be used as part of a dovetail joint, it seems to me that, as long as the ends are parallel with each other, things will work out. The squareness of long edges don't matter that much.


It seems to me that the only place where it really matters is in mortise & tenon joints. You really need the two reference surfaces to be square, so that the joints come together without gaps, and so that the piece you're building comes out square.


So, once you've got the face planed (so that it's a plane, of course), you need to get the edge square to the face. The first thing I do is to use a square and a knife to mark the edge on each end of the board. If the board is short enough (oh, wait, I'm the proud owner of a 6ft Starrett straight edge, so it's always short enough :)), I use a straight edge to connect the marks end-to-end. With that, you have more than enough information (mathematically speaking) to define the edge. I'm assuming that you have a square, so that you can always mark each end of the board from the face. If you don't have a long enough straight edge, sighting down the board is an easy way to tell if you're true -- it just doesn't have the same tactile feel as when you get down to the knife line.

[Jim Matthews]

I recommend searching Jim Tolpin on Youtube. He has the technique I use.

I use a jack plane to get close, with a cambered blade.

My jointer is three times the length, with no camber on the blade.

I take a few passes in the center of the board until it "bottoms out" and stops cutting.

Then I take full length passes until I hear continuous cutting.

I watch the shaving as it comes off.

If you are having trouble staying square, an auxiliary fence will help.

[Steve Voigt]

If it's part of a table top, then the squareness of the edge is not very important, as long as you match plane. It's also useful if you plane the boards slightly concave lengthwise, so they glue up nicely.



Suppose you are making a slab table out of 8/4 stock. Or a bench seat or chair seat blank. It's going to be hard to match plane it unless you have a 4"wide plane iron.

Match planing has its place. For me, that place is making 1/2" thick (or thinner) panels for a cabinet door. Anything thicker, I think it's simpler to just joint a precise square edge, without jigs or crutches.

[Sean Hughto]

Anything thicker, I think it's simpler to just joint a precise square edge, without jigs or crutches.

Cause using anything but the naked plane is cheating! Ha!

Just get it done however you can. A tablesaw with a nice rip blade, for example ...:eek:

These kind of threads just crack me up. Make - Just Make; the rest will come.

[Chris Parks]

Cause using anything but the naked plane is cheating! Ha!

Just get it done however you can. A tablesaw with a nice rip blade, for example ...:eek:

These kind of threads just crack me up. Make - Just Make; the rest will come.

I do agree somewhat but not everyone can be in an ideal situation to use a TS or jointer etc so the hand planing skill is their only recourse. Also at times it is quicker to take a swipe over an edge with a plane than set up a machine to do the same thing.

[Steve Voigt]

Cause using anything but the naked plane is cheating! Ha!


I didn't say that, and I don't believe it. I don't really even believe in the concept of cheating as applied to woodworking. There was a time in my life when a tablesaw followed by a 'lectrical router and a straight edge clamped to the board was the answer.



Just get it done however you can. A tablesaw with a nice rip blade, for example ...:eek:


I agree with just getting it done, to an extent. The problem is that always focusing on short-term goals inhibits the development of long-term skills. The fastest short-term solution is usually some jigged approach that doesn't build skills or techniques. It's penny-wise and pound-foolish.



These kind of threads just crack me up. Make - Just Make; the rest will come.

They can crack me up too. There are always people advocating a skill-based, unjigged approach, and there are always people on the other side who feel slighted or pissed. What I think the latter often miss is that the former are arguing in good faith. As I'm sure you know, it's a powerful, liberating feeling to realize you can just pick up a plane and joint that edge, with no planning or forethought. In other words, the reward for developing the skill vastly outweighs the short-term pain of learning it. The same could be said for cutting dovetails, sharpening, or any number of things.

So when someone like George tells people to throw away the jig, people often give him a lot of grief. But I think what he's really saying (sorry for putting words in your mouth, George) is that you'll feel like the king of the world when you realize you can just grab a saw and do it, no planning, no set up, no big deal. It's worth repeating: the payoff for learning the skill vastly outweighs the short term pain, and feelings of inadequacy and failure, that are an inevitable part of the learning process.

[Derek Cohen]

To the OP ...

Planing a square edge can be done with a slightly camber edge or a straight edge. As mentioned earlier, I prefer the latter for versatility, but I have used both.

For myself, the key element is where one places the hand at the front (toe) of the plane. Actually, it is the thumb on the front hand. And by this I mean right at the end of the body of the plane, and thumb on the upper side of the plane (not underneath!).

One of the reasons I like the LV BU Jointer so much is that it offers such good feedback, that is, lets you know where on the board the blade is cutting. It is an easy plane to keep flat, and to know where you have moved the cutting edge. One can do this with other planes - you just need to know them well.

The issue of the thumb is that the blade will cut where there is more downforce, and it is the thumb that directs the downforce. If you want to have the blade cut more on one side of the edge than the other, then move the thumb across the plane and press down. Thumb on left side of toe and the plane will cut on the left side, thumb in the centre and the plane cuts a full shaving, and thumb on the right to cut on the right. Finish off with a full shaving - pressing down the toe at the centre of the body.

All this assumes that you have first determined where the high spots are with a square, and marked then with a pencil.

Edit to add: I think that there is a myth that says one learns to pick up a plane and orientate it perfectly. This is an overstatement. I have a pretty good feel for vertical, but this is not good enough. Planing a square edge is also about reading the edge and learning where (or not) to plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Parks]

I think that these kind of questions can miss a very vital point when answered by those who learned the skill years ago and that is those answering often forget the problems they encountered and tend to not get to the nitty gritty so to speak. Because they can do it why should anyone find it hard to acquire the skill and they often even forget the very basic stuff needed by those just learning.

[Warren Mickley]

I marvel at people that can put a square edge on a board by hand planing without jigs or any aids. I have practised this skill for many months and sometimes i get it, most of the time i don't. It seems to me that you must start off at 90 degrees to the face side and rigorously maintain this position to ensure that you finish up with a square edge throughout the entire length of the board. For those that can do this, how do you know you've got the plane sitting at 90 degrees to the face side when you start? .

Tony started this thread with these words at 5:15 AM yesterday. At 6:35 PM he reiterated that he was not interested in other methods of jointing a board, but people came out of the woodwork to offer distractions to the question. If someone wants to talk about shooting boards, match planing, jigs or machinery, they could maybe start another thread.

Tony, I once won an event in hand tool Olympics at WIA, jointing a hand ripped board in 22 seconds. Maybe I am one that you marvel at. Here are some thoughts.

The first step in jointing is to get the edge close by feel and by eye. Everyone can sense this to some degree, some within 12 degrees some within 2 degrees etc. But even if one started out planing at a perfect angle, as you suggest, a very slight crookedness in the iron would add up after a number of passes to make the edge slightly off. The second step is to evaluate the edge with square and straight edge. Try with the square at each end and more places if the board is long. There is a reason Roubo's bench illustration has a try square hanging on the left leg. Make a mental picture of the landscape, highs and lows.

The third step is to plane only the high spots or to plane the high spots more heavily than the lows. This is where the most skill and judgement comes into play. You want to get the surface quite a bit closer to true before testing again. Ideally there would be only one round, but don't worry if you have to go through a number of rounds of planing and testing because your mind sees this as a learning opportunity. You will get better with repetition. When planing the high spots, it is helpful to have a finely cambered iron, but not necessary.

[Sean Hughto]

I apologize for reading the title of this post: "Square edges on boards, but how?" and thinking the OP was interested in how other woodworkers successfully and efficiently achieve square edges.

I now understand that he is absolutely only interested in how to do it with a jigged chisel, uh ... er, I mean handplane. Fair enough. I get it. The respect and admiration showered on those who can joint an eight foot 8/4 plank in a minute of two is legend. Not to mention the chicks really dig it. ;)

[Sean Hughto]

I think that there is a myth that says one learns to pick up a plane and orientate it perfectly. This is an overstatement. I have a pretty good feel for vertical, but this is not good enough. Planing a square edge is also about reading the edge and learning where (or not) to plane.

Well stated.

[Pat Barry]

Tony, I once won an event in hand tool Olympics at WIA, jointing a hand ripped board in 22 seconds. Maybe I am one that you marvel at. Here are some thoughts.

The first step in jointing is to get the edge close by feel and by eye. Everyone can sense this to some degree, some within 12 degrees some within 2 degrees etc. But even if one started out planing at a perfect angle, as you suggest, a very slight crookedness in the iron would add up after a number of passes to make the edge slightly off. The second step is to evaluate the edge with square and straight edge. Try with the square at each end and more places if the board is long. There is a reason Roubo's bench illustration has a try square hanging on the left leg. Make a mental picture of the landscape, highs and lows.

The third step is to plane only the high spots or to plane the high spots more heavily than the lows. This is where the most skill and judgement comes into play. You want to get the surface quite a bit closer to true before testing again. Ideally there would be only one round, but don't worry if you have to go through a number of rounds of planing and testing because your mind sees this as a learning opportunity. You will get better with repetition. When planing the high spots, it is helpful to have a finely cambered iron, but not necessary.
Warren - congratulations on your achievement at the Olympics! I for one did not even know there was a hand tool Olympics. I assume that one of the judging criteria was that the boards edge was true and square. It is simply amazing that you were able to do what you described in these two paragraphs in 22 seconds. Congrats again

[Pat Barry]

Suppose you are making a slab table out of 8/4 stock. ... Anything thicker, I think it's simpler to just joint a precise square edge, without jigs or crutches.
I couldn't do it. I would use my tablesaw and match the boards by ripping the edges to alternate top / bottom to get a best fit. Any attempt on my part to improve this through use of a handplane would be making things worse. There - I said it, I am inept at the use of a plane for this task. I can live with it. At the same time I still don't think its quite so easy as some of you advocate. Frankly I hear some of the experts here sounding like they can compete with a power jointer or planer and achieve the same degree of straightness and squareness. I just don't believe it. I'd love to see it done manually with 8/4 stock, say 6 ft long, enough for a dining table for example. Plane each edge of each of several boards by hand using the methods professed by some of the experts here. Then stick them together and check for gaps top vs bottom. I'd be stunned if the top came together without gaps top and bottom - after all, this is really the only purpose for trying to create a 'perfectly square' jointed edge, isn't it. For EVERY other situation, visually close when observed at arms length for example is fine. I bet you could get the top edge correct but not both top and bottom. And as it regards this magical camber that's touted - how much camber? Camber doesn't give a flat surface after all - it gives a concave surface, right? Well, a 'perfectly square' edge doesn't have a concave surface, and that's a fact.

[David Weaver]

It wouldn't be that hard to do what you're describing, Pat, but it would take longer than it would with a large power jointer.

However, the person using the plane wouldn't have the expense of a large power jointer. Long boards like that on most smaller power jointers equals awkwardness and an edge that's not that good.

[Sean Hughto]

Steve, I didn't mean to attack you personally at all. But I do find a certain sort of machismo attitude in woodworking to be sort of silly and potentially inhibiting to beginners. Attitudes that denigrate jigs as "crutches" for example. Telling beginners that to be respected, they must do an operation in the way a skilled professional like Warren or George would do it with years and years of experience is rather intimidating. Hobbyists do not need to be fast or terribly efficient or naturally talented at the outset or maybe even ever. They can still get nice furniture built and achieve tremendous satisfaction.

I think this is an overstatement:
The problem is that always focusing on short-term goals inhibits the development of long-term skills. The fastest short-term solution is usually some jigged approach that doesn't build skills or techniques. It's penny-wise and pound-foolish.

As an example, if you chose a method in your shop - say resawing planks with a bandsaw as opposed to by hand and therefor never learn the finer points of getting it done by hand, does that make a difference to your woodworking? If you choose to make your tenons with an electric router and never learn to saw them by hand, is that "pound foolish?" Is conquering some arbitrary alternative set of techniques an end in itself? Why, cause it's cooler to be able to say you did it in X manner? And if process affects the result, then you will indeed have the incentive to persevere at learning the new process or technique.

I do remember well being intimidated by sharpening or sawing by hand and on and on. But I started with jigs and aids and paring and so forth, and over time was able to freehand sharpen (funny enough, the jig had taught me some things) and to saw to a line consistently, etc. So in many cases in my experience, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can get things done today with various "crutches" while still building skills over time.

[Kees Heiden]

Well, I'm not super good at this job, but my planer/thicknesser combo is even worse, so I just muddle along. Thick boards are easier for me then thin ones. That's why I like the match planing technique for those. And that's surpisingly easy (relatively). I am afraid I can't give better tips. My method is more or less what Warren describes. It just takes me a lot longer then 22 seconds.

[Sean Hughto]

Pat, you are not alone. And please don't wait to build your table until you can achieve a perfect joint in 22 seconds with only a handplane. Frankly, I think most people are going to be much more interested in how beautiful that 8/4 cherry looks atop that wonderful trestle with the tusk tenons than in just how you jointed those chunks of cherry. By the way, you did use hide glue right? I mean the granules from scratch in a pot, not the bottle stuff, of course. :)

[Derek Cohen]

Steve, I didn't mean to attack you personally at all. But I do find a certain sort of machismo attitude in woodworking to be sort of silly and potentially inhibiting to beginners. Attitudes that denigrate jigs as "crutches" for example. Telling beginners that to be respected, they must do an operation in the way a skilled professional like Warren or George would do it with years and years of experience is rather intimidating. Hobbyists do not need to be fast or terribly efficient or naturally talented at the outset or maybe even ever. They can still get nice furniture built and achieve tremendous satisfaction.

I think this is an overstatement:

The problem is that always focusing on short-term goals inhibits the development of long-term skills. The fastest short-term solution is usually some jigged approach that doesn't build skills or techniques. It's penny-wise and pound-foolish.

As an example, if you chose a method in your shop - say resawing planks with a bandsaw as opposed to by hand and therefor never learn the finer points of getting it done by hand, does that make a difference to your woodworking? If you choose to make your tenons with an electric router and never learn to saw them by hand, is that "pound foolish?" Is conquering some arbitrary alternative set of techniques an end in itself? Why, cause it's cooler to be able to say you did it in X manner? And if process affects the result, then you will indeed have the incentive to persevere at learning the new process or technique.

I do remember well being intimidated by sharpening or sawing by hand and on and on. But I started with jigs and aids and paring and so forth, and over time was able to freehand sharpen (funny enough, the jig had taught me some things) and to saw to a line consistently, etc. So in many cases in my experience, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can get things done today with various "crutches" while still building skills over time.

I totally agree with your sentiments, Sean. We should be encouraging members to try techniques, mindful that some will do so at different stages than others. I find it disquieting that some advice comes across as a criticism.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Daniel Rode]

The OP asked reasonably specific questions about how to joint an edge with a hand plane. A number of people answered with tips concerning how they do it. People also commented that, like any fine motor skill, significant practice is required. I find those answers encouraging.

IMO, this is a technique that anyone is capable of mastering given sufficient time and effort (even me).

[David Weaver]

I do remember well being intimidated by sharpening or sawing by hand and on and on. But I started with jigs and aids and paring and so forth, and over time was able to freehand sharpen (funny enough, the jig had taught me some things) and to saw to a line consistently, etc. So in many cases in my experience, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can get things done today with various "crutches" while still building skills over time.

I can't remember everything early on, except I do remember overshooting marks trying to dimension by hand and saw by hand, or having to do a lot more planing to clean up a sawn edge. I doubt there are many marks I miss by a hundredth now.

I also remember as I was doing it that I've seen other people do the work and as far as i know, (other than my judgement!), I had the ability to learn to do it and thus never got that down about waiting to get better at things. Point being that it's not can or can't, it's want to or don't want to. And if you don't want to, that's fine.

I didn't want to buy 220 equipment, and it was clear that I was either going to spend a lot of money on power tools, or spend that money somewhere else. Everyones' personality type is different. If I'd have bought those power tools, I'd never have made the style of planes that are in my avatar. 90% of the people here couldn't give a rats rear end about planes like mine, and they'd choose the power tools over expensive hand tools (or inexpensive hand tools).

I see warren's point here, though, that the OP wants to learn to do what warren is describing, and most of the responses have nothing to do with what he wants to do. It's not helpful for (sean, this is not directed at you) people to suggest you can't make anything with hand tools or the work will be excruciatingly slow, because that's not true in the long term. That's the essence of skill. Most of us will never be as good at hand tooling as warren, but this is what warren does for a living. If we did it for a living, we would probably get as good at it as warren if we wanted to. That's an important point. Suggestion that you "can't do" certain things, like creating a quality joint between two long 8/4 boards is false and is unfortunately likely to be believed by people who are early in their travels.

Like kees, I had a marginal power jointer. It wouldn't have done very well with jointing two 6 foot boards, but I can do those by hand without any issues, as many here probably can. Those who can't probably can't because they don't want to.

[Sean Hughto]

you "can't do" certain things, like creating a quality joint between two long 8/4 boards is false and is unfortunately likely to be believed by people who are early in their travels.


Did someone here suggest that it cannot be done? I think you misread, Pat. He said "I couldn't", not "you can't."

By the way, I'd love to have one of your planes. Do you ever sell 'em?

[Sean Hughto]

Read the rest of Pat's post. I guess to the extent he would be "stunned" if someone could do it gap free, I'd say, Pat, you would indeed be stunned. I can be done quickly by the practiced and with patience, by many. Some folks may never get the knack or have the patience I suppose. No harm in that, as there are plenty of work arounds.

[David Weaver]

Did someone here suggest that it cannot be done? I think you misread, Pat. He said "I couldn't", not "you can't."

By the way, I'd love to have one of your planes. Do you ever sell 'em?

>> I bet you could get the top edge correct but not both top and bottom. <<

That's pat's comment that I was referencing. (edit, i see you picked that part up while I was typing this).

As far as the plane goes, I'd make a few more planes if I could find beech, but I'm not going to sell planes for any more than what it costs me to make them. I'd make them at cost and that would be fine. Getting good wood and a good double iron set is about $80 or so, might be a little more from the wood if horizon special orders it for me - so far, their salespeople don't actually return my calls or emails, so that's not looking promising.

[Steve Voigt]

Steve, I didn't mean to attack you personally at all. But I do find a certain sort of machismo attitude in woodworking to be sort of silly and potentially inhibiting to beginners. Attitudes that denigrate jigs as "crutches" for example.

Sean, I didn't take it as a personal attack, and I completely agree about the machismo thing. I should use a different word than "crutch.

I think, perhaps because I was not clear, that you misunderstood me here:


As an example, if you chose a method in your shop - say resawing planks with a bandsaw as opposed to by hand and therefor never learn the finer points of getting it done by hand, does that make a difference to your woodworking? If you choose to make your tenons with an electric router and never learn to saw them by hand, is that "pound foolish?" Is conquering some arbitrary alternative set of techniques an end in itself? Why, cause it's cooler to be able to say you did it in X manner? And if process affects the result, then you will indeed have the incentive to persevere at learning the new process or technique.


I didn't mean to say that each and every skill has to be mastered, or that every session in the shop has to focus on skill-building rather than making product. And I definitely was never interested in learning some arbitrary set of techniques. Far from it. What I would suggest though, is that people who want to learn skills spend at least some of their time mastering the fundamental techniques that will come up over and over, even if it's at the expense of slowing down a current project. If you are making one-off cabinets and boxes and you have to pull out the router dovetail jig every time you want to make a single drawer, it's going to end up costing a lot of time in the long run. That's all I meant by penny-wise/pond foolish.

For someone like Pat, if (and only if) he wants to learn to joint by hand, I'd suggest that he try it for a few minutes every time he needs to get a good edge on a board. If he gets frustrated, or just wants to get on with the project, then take it over to the powered jointer. Eventually things will click and it will be no big deal.

[Steve Voigt]

Frankly I hear some of the experts here sounding like they can compete with a power jointer or planer and achieve the same degree of straightness and squareness. I just don't believe it. I'd love to see it done manually with 8/4 stock, say 6 ft long, enough for a dining table for example. Plane each edge of each of several boards by hand using the methods professed by some of the experts here. Then stick them together and check for gaps top vs bottom. I'd be stunned if the top came together without gaps top and bottom

A hand-jointed edge can surpass, by far, the quality that the average consumer-grade power jointer can produce. I don't think it can compete in terms of time, but it can be done pretty quickly and efficiently. I don't have any 6'-long glued edges on hand to show you, but I did some shorter chair blanks recently, and I'll upload some photos tonight if I get a chance.

[Patrick Bernardo]

Make a mental picture of the landscape, highs and lows.

I just wanted to jump in on this, because, although I'm a total duffer, I'm getting better. What I have to offer is of much less weight than these guys like Warren who have this down, but as a beginner still, I know what helped me.

So for the OP: one thing that really helped me get better at this is that old 'vision thing.' I realized that I have an enormous flat surface (benchtop) to use as a reference, and if I visualize skating the plane across the surface of the bench as I'm jointing, I tend to keep the plane flat. Sort of like not aiming at the head of the nail when you're driving it, but visualize hitting the point. It's tempting sometimes to just plane away and hope for square, but in reality you have to have a pretty precise mental picture of what you're doing. Otherwise you just end up rocking the line back and forth out of square each way.

Also, if you learn well by reading (as I do), Jeff Miller's book The Foundation of Woodworking has a pretty helpful description of footwork and its relation to techniques.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I just wanted to jump in on this, because, although I'm a total duffer, I'm getting better. What I have to offer is of much less weight than these guys like Warren who have this down, but as a beginner still, I know what helped me.

As a beginner at some particular aspect, sometimes that can be very helpful since you remember perhaps more readily than an experienced person what little insights helped.

I expect that with sufficient practice, a person can develop the skills required to accomplish this task. I have not yet mastered this, so I have been practicing. Cut a bit, test a bit...

[Daniel Rode]

Maybe I don't know anything but I think a hand planed edge is superior for gluing. Even when I use a power jointer, I've been following up with a pass or two from a hand plane. This began as practice but I've been sticking with it because it seems to work better.

The jointer leaves a scalloped surface rather than the smooth surface left by a hand plane. I like to use rub joints and I can feel the difference when the glue grabs. The edge needs to be perfectly flat and square (or matched) for a rub joint to work.

I know that in theory, the hand planned edge is very slightly concave due to the camber on the iron but in practice, it feels and behaves as if it were completely flat and square.

[Pat Barry]

So I am impressed that the general thought is that creating the perfect squared edge is something doable. It would seem that most tend to use a bit of camber in their plane blade to accomplish this so I went back to do some math and try to understand. Maybe folks can reply with their suggested camber....

Here are examples for a camber with a uniform camber radius of X and a plane blade of width = 2" (just to keep it simple and consistent)
4 inch rad, 2 inch width = 0.127" depth of camber
8 inch rad, 2 inch width = 0.062" depth of camber
16 inch rad, 2 inch width = 0.031 depth of camber
32 inch rad, 2 inch width = 0.016" depth of camber

So obviously you don't need full exposure of your blade. Lets say you are targeting a .001" shaving
Doing the math yields the following:
8 inch rad, .001" depth = 0.25" cut width
16 inch rad, .001" depth = 0.36" cut width

Based on this I tend to think Derek's idea of using a flat blade (no camber) might work better, otherwise that uniform camber would tend to leave a scalloped surface, perpendicular to the one Daniel described above. It might be that lengthwise scallops are better than cross-wise like a power jointer might give.
I would have trouble keeping the edge square with such a narrow cutting path as a uniformly camber blade would give. Maybe the camber is just there to knock down the very corners only and still yield a basically flat blade??

[David Weaver]

That's not a representative number for camber on a jointer. A jointer would have a few thousandths of gradual camber.

[Pat Barry]

That's not a representative number for camber on a jointer. A jointer would have a few thousandths of gradual camber.

Super interesting! .003" depth of camber over 2" width = 167" radius and that corresponds to ~ 1.2" width for a .001" shaving. Now I can see the possibilities....


Is that about what you used to true up and square the sides on your Beech jointer?

[Steve Voigt]

So I am impressed that the general thought is that creating the perfect squared edge is something doable. It would seem that most tend to use a bit of camber in their plane blade to accomplish this so I went back to do some math and try to understand. Maybe folks can reply with their suggested camber....

Here are examples for a camber with a uniform camber radius of X and a plane blade of width = 2" (just to keep it simple and consistent)
4 inch rad, 2 inch width = 0.127" depth of camber
8 inch rad, 2 inch width = 0.062" depth of camber
16 inch rad, 2 inch width = 0.031 depth of camber
32 inch rad, 2 inch width = 0.016" depth of camber

So obviously you don't need full exposure of your blade. Lets say you are targeting a .001" shaving
Doing the math yields the following:
8 inch rad, .001" depth = 0.25" cut width
16 inch rad, .001" depth = 0.36" cut width

Based on this I tend to think Derek's idea of using a flat blade (no camber) might work better, otherwise that uniform camber would tend to leave a scalloped surface, perpendicular to the one Daniel described above. It might be that lengthwise scallops are better than cross-wise like a power jointer might give.
I would have trouble keeping the edge square with such a narrow cutting path as a uniformly camber blade would give. Maybe the camber is just there to knock down the very corners only and still yield a basically flat blade??

The camber is not there to knock down the corners. It is exactly what Warren said: a continuous, very shallow curve. That way, you can perform the sort of adjustments he talked about.

You can tell if the iron is cambered well for jointing by balancing a wooden straight edge, or anything flat, on the top of the curve. You should see just a small crack of light at the edges. Like Dave said, a few thousandths.

Purely for the purpose of exercising (exorcizing?) my inner geek, here are some radii for a 2 3/8 iron (like a Stanley no.7).

.004 camber: r = 176.129"
.003 camber: r = 234.837"

So obviously, thinking in terms of radii is useless. You form the camber on the stone, not at the grinder.

If the camber is .003, divide by root 2 to get the actual camber that is presented to the wood at 45° (did I do that right? You tell me, Mr. Engineer! :D ), so .00212. If your stock is 1.75 thick, that's 73.7% of 2.375, so the actual hollow in the center of the edge is (approximately!!) .0015". Moderate clamping pressure should close that no problem.

I think what this all shows is the problem with making abstractions and calculations that are not rooted in practical experience and observation. I think it would be better to read some good descriptions of jointing with a cambered iron, and then go practice it. I recall Mr. Schwarz had a good write up of it at some point; so did lots of other people. And actually, it's all here in this thread, if you read closely enough…

Edit: Pat, I see you were doing the math while I was typing. Oh well…

[David Weaver]

All of my planes probably have something like that ...well, all of the jointer and smoothing planes. It's just what sharpening technique produces when you do what warren describes freehanding on a stone that you've maintained.

I never thought of it as a radius, but more where the corners start to leave marks (as in, I'd call .003" of camber for practical purposes the first cut depth that you start to be able to visibly see something on the surface of the wood in raking light, because the iron is cutting full width at that point). If you're using the plane and the corners are marking at your desired cut depth, then you just increase the camber a little bit next sharpening. If the shaving is too narrow, then you flatten it out some.

That type of camber is why just moving the plane to the left or the right is so effective when squaring an edge.

I squared my plane when I roughed it out using an iron like that, but I did finish smooth it when I was done and never checked it at that point (it will never be worked on its side) so it could very well be slightly out of square. Most of my old planes are not close to square, but that's not saying you couldn't square them up very easily just by truing the bottom and then planing the side square to it.

[Sean Hughto]

Pat, there is no need to measure or do math to try this out for yourself. Do you sharpen with a stone of some sort? Do you have an eclipse type jig or a LV one that permits a camber? If so, imparting a useful TINY camber is trivially easy. You may already know the process, but if not, I'll gladly walk you through it. The aim is to pop the blade in your plane and when laterally adjusted properly, the cutting starts at the center of the blade with the thinnest shavings - a slight advance to a medium shaving, will come close to full width. And yes, there is no doubt some level of scallop in the ten thousandths range, but it is so slight that it is not perceptible as such and does not affect the joint a bit - only the grain reveals where the two boards meet.

[Sean Hughto]

299226I found the little diagram describing the sharpening method.

[Sean Hughto]

Yet more info and options:
http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/video/the-proper-camber-on-a-handplane-blade.aspx

[Jim Koepke]

Lets say you are targeting a .001" shaving

Even though I am a lover of the thin shaving, this is almost never my target when jointing a piece.

For me the answer came down to understanding what was wrong with my planing. Then it came down to it feels when the planing is done right.

First was the correcting for out of square with the bias to the high side David Weaver mentioned.

Then it was being able to look at the end of a piece and seeing whether it was in our out of square as Warren mentioned.

Finally with practice, experience and time my planing has become better able to make an edge square with a lot less work.

Of course if a week or two goes by without any shop time it takes an attempt or two to get back in the groove.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

And of course, let's not forget, the easiest way to joint an edge is not to joint at all. Use wide boards.

[Tony Caro]

Again thanks for the suggestions and discussion. It would appear that the almost mystical square an edge by feel/sight skill may not be all that realistic. That in one way makes me feel a little better. I've spent hours developing hand skills such as sawing straight, you develop a feel for vertical there fairly quickly. The squaring of an edge without a physical reference is a lot more demanding. When I first got into hand planes I sought videos and a number of them would demonstrate edge planing without any jigs/aids and then bring a square up to it and beam happily "there, perfectly square". No mention of the body mechanics or reference to physical objects to assist in the process, somehow these craftsmen can do it instinctively. Thanks to Derek, Warren, Patrick and others for their suggestions, I like to try anything and everything, I know I'm close to getting this right, just need that tactile (?) feedback to steer me clear.

[Pat Barry]

299226I found the little diagram describing the sharpening method.
Thanks Sean, I see if I can try that technique this weekend

[Tony Caro]

Joint until the board looks straight and square, then take a square and check the board for square and put a pencil tick at the high spots.

Make a through pass by biasing the plane on the sides of the board that have your tick marks. By biasing, I mean literally moving the plane left or right so that you're only cutting with one side.

Make sure your plane is cutting evenly on the left and the right. On planing the other side to a width mark, make your ticks a couple of passes before you hit your width mark so that you don't overshoot.

Study what your natural error is. Mine was to plane the near edge low on the left and the far side low on the right.
Have now spent several hours practising and found that my natural error is the same as David's but despite plenty of practice and trying to retrain my brain i still make the same error. David, can you please elaborate on what you said above ie the bolded text.

[David Weaver]

That means if you're planing an edge opposite of the first edge you jointed to a width mark, you have to stop short of your marking line so you have enough room to mark the high side of your error and plane it out.

That way, you can correct your error and end up right on the marked line and not overshoot your marked line (making a finished piece that's too narrow).

You have to do it by feel (in terms of learning where it is that you have to stop your bulk planing and start marking the errors to remove them).

[Derek Cohen]

Following from my post: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?223205-Square-edges-on-boards-but-how&p=2327227#post2327227

I snapped a few photos to demonstrate how I square an edge with a straight blade.

The victim is an 18" section of Jarrah with an approximately 1" wide edge.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/a_zpsaaa64c2d.jpg

Although this looks fine from afar, up close with a straight edge it is evident that there is a high spot in the centre ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/b_zps10ceb42f.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/c_zps465973c8.jpg

The gap was much wider that this ... you try holding a Jarrah board and cast iron level in one hand up to the light, and a camera in the other, and trying to align the two!!!! :)

... and one side is skewed the entire length ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/d_zpsafb432ff.jpg

In summary ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/e11_zps1cd51e70.jpg

The first step is to use a smoother to remove the high spot in the centre. Check the progress with the straight edge. I will end up with a slight hollow in the centre ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/f_zps1f873392.jpg

The next step is to level/square the edge along the first and last quarters with the jointer. This is done with the sole across the board (rather than angled or using a hollow), but with thumb pressure on the right side of the toe (in front of the mouth) ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/h_zpsbeb42b8a.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/g_zpse7e44b7b.jpg

You can see that the shaving is coming from the right side of the blade. This is purely due to down force/pressure in that area.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/i_zpsecd851aa.jpg

I measure the progress. It is looking square-ish but a little lumpy.

Final stage - level the edge.

The thumb now moves to the middle of the plane, and you can see the shaving escaping from the centre now ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/j1_zps4415102f.jpg

If it is necessary to take more off one side, then simply move the thumb across to that point. Chase the highs with the thumb.

A couple of full, even shavings, and then we are square ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/l_zps7cf969f3.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Joints/Jointing%20boards/k_zps7ab5ab14.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/m_zps0735229b.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tony Caro]

Thanks David and Derek for the photos illustrating your technique, you make it look easy but i doubt it is. I will try this technique and report back.