The Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review

[Derek Cohen]

One thing lead to another, and I wrote a series of articles ... four in all.


It just seemed to flow in that direction.


It began with the idea that if one could design a plane of their dream, what what they include? Lee Valley recently released the Custom Bench Plane concept, and I have a jointer and a smoother. I also have a bunch of parts ... and together they offer the opportunity to explore different combinations. And then compare these with BU equivalents and Stanley equivalents ........


You get the message. It became bigger than Ben Hur.


I'd like the articles to be a springboard for discussion here. Some of it is old stuff, but there is also new stuff. I can add, modify, include what is written to the articles.


1. Introduction: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes1.html


2. Designing a Plane: tips on choosing and tuning: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2.html


3. Designing a Plane: Knobs and Handles - or how we really use a plane! : http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3.html


4. To Chipbreak or Not to Chipbreak: frog angle choice : http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes4.html


Happy New Year and ...


Regards from Perth


Derek

[Will Boulware]

In a word, WOW! Thanks for taking the time to answer (and bring up) so many questions!

[Jeff Ranck]

Derek:

Well done (yet) again! I read all four and I can't imagine the amount of actual "work" it took to put these together. I found the articles very interesting and will definitely be using the info in there if (when?) I actually can purchase one of these. I certainly want one, even if I don't necessarily need one.

I found it interesting that after reading your section on handles and how folks actually push a plane, I could recognize the way that I use my old stanley #5, which I have set up as a coarse plane with a 8" or so camber on the iron. I hadn't noticed before, but I do tend to push with the heal of my hand and the top of my hand is basically unsupported. My forearm is parallel with the work and I'm definitely not pushing "down" toward the mouth of the plane. My first plane was a LV bevel up jack, so that may have influenced how I "learned" to hold and push a plane.

I don't have the range of planes you have, but I do find I prefer the mushroom front knob of my BU jack and BU jointer over the other knob types on my Stanley #5 and LV BD smoother (old style).

Again, well done!

[Bill White]

Excellent study and documentation. Wish we had more well thought efforts such as yours.
Bill

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks for all the work Derek.

Maybe I will win the lottery and then get a hankering for some new planes.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

Your concept of Center of Effort has been discussed previously here in at least one other thread "The other advantage to a BU plane is that it has a low centre of effort (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/CentreofEffortinaPlane.html). The force vector focuses the energy efficiently. I have long argued that, angle-for-angle, a BU plane require less effort to push and offer more feedback than a BD plane with a high centre of effort. "
This is an unfamiliar term but it seems what you are saying is that the center of mass of a BU plane is apparently lower than for a BD plane with the same angle. Perhaps this has to do with the handle and the way the tool is gripped and pushed or maybe it has do to with the apparent tendency of the blade to pull the plane into the wood. If this (latter) is the case, then I now see that the chipbreaker being set close to the cutting edge as advocated for a BD plane actually causes the user to have to exert more downforce to push the plane down as opposed to the BU plane being unrestricted by a cap iron, therefore less restricted and requiring a lower user downforce. This reduced user supplied downforce is interpreted by the user as what you term the lower center of effort. Thoughts? Does this make sense?

[Shawn Pixley]

Thanks Derek!

Insightful as always. I found especially interesting the handle analysis. The taller but curved prototype that you made of the Stanley version, did you keep it and use it? I am tempted to build one as I like the curve in the handle but after a long planing session find the heel of my palm at the pinky side is sore (maybe bruised if I was flattening a large slab).

[Reinis Kanders]

Great articles! Really resonated for me. I am not an experienced woodworker, but do have a lot of planes and have used them a lot for a couple of years. I am also an engineer so I do try to quantify my feelings:)

I also found that for the new custom smoother I prefer the same handle combos that you chose. I ordered both types, and strongly favor mushroom for front and Veritas style tote for the back.
BTW they seem to not color match their new handles so my custom plane is now custom ugly:)

One thing that irks me about the custom planes is that area around the plane's mouth is not flat instead it has quite a curve to accommodate adjustment screw. On Stanley planes I like to put my thumb in that area when edge jointing.

Thanks again for the good read.

[Jim Koepke]

Thoughts? Does this make sense?

Yes Pat it does.

The chip breaker is pushing back on the shaving as it is being formed. It helps prevent tear out, but it takes a little more energy from the equation.


it has do to with the apparent tendency of the blade to pull the plane into the wood.

To me this tendency seems to lift the wood ahead of the blade if the bevel is at a low angle. In some woods it seems my BD planes can get a better surface than my BU planes.

jtk

[Richard Line]

Thanks for these articles. They answered a number of questions, including several I hadn't got around to asking myself. A thought did come to me about using the LV standard handle and downward pressure (I have the LV bu jointer and bu smoother). Particularly with the jointer, I am now wondering if we don't also apply downward pressure through the side of the heal of our hand as it 'rests' on the bottom of the plane; I shouldn't think this would be a lot of pressure.

Also thanks for including the link to cambering bu blades. I had seen this before I got my bu planes and had forgotten about it. Now, I will need to use this approach. Thanks again.

[Jeff Ranck]

Thanks Derek!

The taller but curved prototype that you made of the Stanley version, did you keep it and use it? I am tempted to build one as I like the curve in the handle but after a long planing session find the heel of my palm at the pinky side is sore (maybe bruised if I was flattening a large slab).

oooh yes. A pattern!

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Thank you for sharing your usual thorough review. I found myself wanting to slap Christopher Schwarz and say, "Dude- get a taller bench. It hurts to look at you in that position."

[David B. Morris]

Derek, I have mined your site for much advice as I have re-started my woodworking education; your pages on M&T are the best I've seen. This treatise on the LV custom planes and planes in general was a revelation in many ways. The next time I'm in the shop I'll have your findings about hand-tote geometry in mind.

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Derek!

Insightful as always. I found especially interesting the handle analysis. The taller but curved prototype that you made of the Stanley version, did you keep it and use it? I am tempted to build one as I like the curve in the handle but after a long planing session find the heel of my palm at the pinky side is sore (maybe bruised if I was flattening a large slab).

Thanks Shawn.

The handle on the #604 is going to remain! It is a significant improvement in control, comfort and power.

One of the design features of this handle I did not mention (there were already too many items going into the article) is the area where the pinky rests. If you compare mine with the Veritas, you will note (below) that this area is removed. The handle is a three-finger grip (compared to the four-finger grip of the Veritas), and I wanted to make it feel less "crowded".

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes4_html_1c26dd2d.jpg

The ergonomics especially become apparent as the blade begins to dull and you push harder. Observe this for yourself.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

.... Particularly with the jointer, I am now wondering if we don't also apply downward pressure through the side of the heal of our hand as it 'rests' on the bottom of the plane; I shouldn't think this would be a lot of pressure. ...

Hi Richard

I cannot imagine the benefit of both downforce and forward thrust being exerted from the handle side of the plane. The only time I expect to exert downforce at the handle end is when we reach the end of a board. Otherwise it strikes me as wasted energy.

My perception (open to discussion, so do to take this as the only view) is that downforce is only meaningful at the mouth of the plane, where there is benefit in holding down wood fibres as they are cut. My perception is that this is done via downforce on the toe (above the mouth).

This is the reason I asked Mateo about the radical forward lean of his handles, particularly with such a heavy plane. I was not being critical, just curious. His threads are: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?226060-A-few-pics-of-one-of-my-latest-infill-smoothers and http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?226151-Another-infill-completed

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

That's a very interesting article Derek, especially the bit about the handles and how to push a plane. I quickly watched some videos from myself and I see that I move from my shoulders often and don't have my elbow so low. I guess that isn't wrong (I still get my boards flat without physically falling apart), but there might be room for optimisation. As far as I can see, light work like smoothing and jointing an edge don't need all that thrust from behind, and I still think that during the stroke you not only move from the hips but certainly also extend your arms towards the end of the stroke (especially on longer boards). And then there is speed. Building up speed before the stroke helps to overcome hard work. But building up speed is easer from the shoulders then from the hips (I think). Well, anyway, complex subject, and certainly worthy of some experimentation.

Regarding the vertical force on the plane. How the cutting edge is pulled into the wood or pushed out of it depends on many factors. A thicker shaving tends to pull the edge into the wood, a thin one hardly. The cutting angle is important, 45 degrees has a lot more force pulling the edge into the wood then 60 degrees. The capiron demishes this force, but not hardly as much as a steeper cutting angle. Grain direction is important, against the grain has much more vertical force into the wood. The wood species, pine is easier then beech. And last but not least the dulling of the edge. When the edge becomes dull, a bulge forms at the underside of the edge which literally pushes the edge upwards.

The Paul Sellers trick of pulling the plane with a cord is a nice party trick, but it needs the right circumstances. He uses pine, a thickish shaving, a 45 degree plane without capiron, a very sharp edge and probably some cooperative grain. I tried it too, and it is very hard to get a full length, full width shaving. It helps to dial in a shaving at least 0.1 mm thick, and you will see that the shaving becomes thicker as soon as you push down a bit on the plane. So, in real life, you often do need vertical force, even when mathematical analyses would have you believe that you don't need it. Luckily you can sense pretty accurately how much vertical force you really need.

The English woodworker also had an interesting blog about this a while ago: http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/?p=2095

[Chris Hachet]

This is really interesting. I have never found wood that would not submit to the ECE wood Primus smoother (50 degree equivalent frog angle) and a sharp blade. That Aussie wood looks like it is some tough stuff to plane!

[Derek Cohen]

That's a very interesting article Derek, especially the bit about the handles and how to push a plane. I quickly watched some videos from myself and I see that I move from my shoulders often and don't have my elbow so low. I guess that isn't wrong (I still get my boards flat without physically falling apart), but there might be room for optimisation. As far as I can see, light work like smoothing and jointing an edge don't need all that thrust from behind, and I still think that during the stroke you not only move from the hips but certainly also extend your arms towards the end of the stroke (especially on longer boards). And then there is speed. Building up speed before the stroke helps to overcome hard work. But building up speed is easer from the shoulders then from the hips (I think). Well, anyway, complex subject, and certainly worthy of some experimentation.

Hi Kees

Power comes from the hips, never the arms. You will just tire yourself out. And adding speed will just do this faster!

I posted the links on the Aussie forum, where they were read by a good buddy of mine, who is a recently retired lecturer from the medical world. This was his comment:

"You have also illustrated rather well 'how to push a plane'. As you imply, long use of a tool brings you to adopt body positions that work over long sessions, which means, essentially, minimising muscular effort. Having your forearm roughly horizontal is 'right' for handles with a mean angle of around 70 degrees. Lay your arm flat, with your wrist in a 'neutral' position & close your fist. The angle your closed fist makes is (surprise) about 70 degrees, unless you are an anatomical anomaly. Pushing with your wrist in that 'neutral' position is less tiring than if you had to twist it up or down a bit. It makes perfect sense that you adopt postures that 'get behind the tool', as I was always encouraged to do. For planing, you most certainly want to bend into the job to bring hip & lumbar muscles into play, so the bench height that best suits you is one where it gives you just the right amount of stoop for a comfortable & sustainable 'power posture'. Using 'postural muscles' in a steady, rythmic process is good. Without getting too technical, these muscles are not only bulky & powerful, they can sustain steady effort over a long period, while your arm muscles are full of so-called 'fast-twitch' fibres that develop lots of power, but tire more quickly. Ask any rock-climber.."

With regard Paul Sellers, he is as much a good showman as he is a good teacher - and he is good at both. His thread may be a stunt, but it remains accurate in regard to demonstrating centre of effort.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Ask any rock-climber.."



I still feel sore from yesterdays training ;). Of course you do as much with the legs as possible, but without strong arms you won't become a good climber! And I am not sure if a static way of planing without momentum is more efficient.

Anyway, I am going to look closer how I use a plane. It'll have to wait a bit though, because I am heading towards the mountains this weekend. And thanks for bringing this up.

[Richard Line]

Derek,

I didn't mean to say that down force is necessarily needed, more that we may be applying it and not aware of it. I'm fairly sure I've been guilty of doing it, and in a rather inefficient manner - behind the handle where it doesn't drive or hold the blade in the work, just tires one.

Thanks for all the good work, info and thought provoking you provide.

[Matt Radtke]

Derek,

Not that you've necessarily got the optimal planes for it, but did you happen to test one of them as a single iron fore plane?

[Hilton Ralphs]

Nice Derek!

Interesting that the tote angle results seem to lean towards the Veritas Standard handle which has for ages attracted unbridled castigation by the other makers' fan-boy club.

An excellent article as usual and I'm thinking of changing all my Stanley handles to the more upright (in both sense) Veritas tote. A low bench and my back are not friends.

Thank again.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Thanks Derek for this review! It has answered almost all of my theoretical questions regarding planes that I have as a beginner. The only missing point for me is comparison of the forward force that requires bevel down plane with closely set chipbreaker and bevel up plane. Let's say that custom bevel down with 42 degree frog with chipbreaker and bevel up with 62 degree included angle. Given that they produced similar excellent results which one was harder to push? Or even better to characterize ergonomics of the tool, which one is the more joy to work with?

[Bill McNiel]

Derek- Mahalo for taking the time and effort to further the collective knowledge base on hand plane design. Excellent presentation and most appreciated.

[Frank Martin]

Given that they produced similar excellent results which one was harder to push? Or even better to characterize ergonomics of the tool, which one is the more joy to work with?

I am also curious about this. I hope Derek responds to this.

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Derek for this review! It has answered almost all of my theoretical questions regarding planes that I have as a beginner. The only missing point for me is comparison of the forward force that requires bevel down plane with closely set chipbreaker and bevel up plane. Let's say that custom bevel down with 42 degree frog with chipbreaker and bevel up with 62 degree included angle. Given that they produced similar excellent results which one was harder to push? Or even better to characterize ergonomics of the tool, which one is the more joy to work with?

Hi Andrey

I have stopped and deleted a reply, and will try again.

The reason for deleting is because I can only offer an opinion, and it is from memory - that is, I would expect the 42 degree BD Custom plus properly set chipbreaker (no accordion shavings) to be easier to push than the 62 degree BU plane of equivalent size. However, this is implying things that may be misunderstood - such as the ease that one can use a BU smoother that has low centre of effort.

I'll try it out this weekend and reply (if no one else does so before).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Frank Martin]

Hi Andrey

I have stopped and deleted a reply, and will try again.

The reason for deleting is because I can only offer an opinion, and it is from memory - that is, I would expect the 42 degree BD Custom plus properly set chipbreaker (no accordion shavings) to be easier to push than the 62 degree BU plane of equivalent size. However, this is implying things that may be misunderstood - such as the ease that one can use a BU smoother that has low centre of effort.

I'll try it out this weekend and reply (if no one else does so before).

Regards from Perth

Derek

One reason I am curious is the center of effort seems similar for the bevel up and the bevel down custom Veritas planes. I think the difference is as close as one could get to simply BU vs. BD nearly all else being equal.

[John Kananis]

Derek, you're a wealth of information - thank you for your diligence.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

One reason I am curious is the center of effort seems similar for the bevel up and the bevel down custom Veritas planes. I think the difference is as close as one could get to simply BU vs. BD nearly all else being equal.

Exactly my point! Being a beginner in hand planes and not having extensive experience with BD bench planes makes it difficult to understand what experienced woodworkers say about BU vs BD. They simply have mastered BD and don't see so much of the use of BU planes. At least that is what I read from Paul Seller's blog posts about BU planes. Yet, some say that Stanley #62 was "one of Stanley's better planes they ever decided to manufacture". This contradicts each other in my view.

One thing to keep in mind is the thickness of the shavings. Chip-breaker has to be set up to about the same distance from the tip of the blade as intended shavings thickness. I fear, that it will also influence the findings for forward force experiments Derek would hopefully perform. And I fear that this would prove that BD is favorable for thick shavings and I expect that for very fine shavings difference will be slim.

Another thing is the angle of chip-breaker. As Japanese professor showed, 50-80 degree is the best for chip-breaker effect.

Overall, Derek formulation of Center of Effort plus scientifically proved magic of chip-breaker might explain that variety of opinions on BU vs BD since there is no absolute winner. But it would be very helpful for beginners like me to decide what way to take and what to try first. Which none of experienced woodworkers managed to explain for me yet.

If custom Veritas BD plane has Center of Effort close to those of Veritas BU planes but easier to push without tearout (thanks to chip-breaker) then it would very much justify my expenses to get one or more. And might also convince my wife - she is scientist as well :)

[David Eisenhauer]

To echo several others - thanks for putting this together and presenting it to all. I still need to digest the whole issue, plus I don't have the knowledge to comment on your views presented, but this will certainly help improve my work. Thank you sir.

[Jim Koepke]

Exactly my point! Being a beginner in hand planes and not having extensive experience with BD bench planes makes it difficult to understand what experienced woodworkers say about BU vs BD. They simply have mastered BD and don't see so much of the use of BU planes. At least that is what I read from Paul Seller's blog posts about BU planes. Yet, some say that Stanley #62 was "one of Stanley's better planes they ever decided to manufacture". This contradicts each other in my view.

One thing to keep in mind is the thickness of the shavings. Chip-breaker has to be set up to about the same distance from the tip of the blade as intended shavings thickness. I fear, that it will also influence the findings for forward force experiments Derek would hopefully perform. And I fear that this would prove that BD is favorable for thick shavings and I expect that for very fine shavings difference will be slim.

Another thing is the angle of chip-breaker. As Japanese professor showed, 50-80 degree is the best for chip-breaker effect.

Overall, Derek formulation of Center of Effort plus scientifically proved magic of chip-breaker might explain that variety of opinions on BU vs BD since there is no absolute winner. But it would be very helpful for beginners like me to decide what way to take and what to try first. Which none of experienced woodworkers managed to explain for me yet.

If custom Veritas BD plane has Center of Effort close to those of Veritas BU planes but easier to push without tearout (thanks to chip-breaker) then it would very much justify my expenses to get one or more. And might also convince my wife - she is scientist as well :)

Howdy Andrey and welcome to the Creek. Your profile doesn't indicate a location.

If you are in the Paciific Northwest I would be happy to let you try my one bevel up Jack and compare it to my bevel down Jack(s). In my use the BU Jack requires less effort to produce a shaving of the same thickness as a BD Jack. The angle of attack on the BU Jack is a touch lower than on any of my BD Jacks.

The angle of attack makes for most of the difference in determining the force necessary to make a shaving. The second main determinator of force needed is the thickness of shaving being produced. The chip breaker adds a little more effort to the equation.

Two planes, one bevel up and one bevel down, with the same angle of attack on the work would likely require the same force to raise a shaving of the same thickness. Any difference would likely be due to the chip breaker.

Of course this doesn't answer questions about Center of Effort. That may have to wait for Derek.

jtk

[don wilwol]

the other possibility is this is just being way over thought. Part of the fun of all this is figuring it out for yourself. If this thread and this exercise hasn't shown that there are differences of opinions, I'm not sure what will. There is no right or wrong answer, and how you work, how you stand, how you sharpen, the kind of wood you use, the air you breath and the kind of beer you drink will all have an influience on the outcome.

The other thought that has always intriqued me is as I've looked at 100's of catologs, from todays to 100 years old, and bought and sold hundreds of planes, search hundreds of tool shops and drooled over thousands and thousands of photes, the ratio of BD versus BU planes tell me a great deal about what has been prefered by craftsman for well over 100 years.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Howdy Andrey and welcome to the Creek. Your profile doesn't indicate a location.

If you are in the Paciific Northwest I would be happy to let you try my one bevel up Jack and compare it to my bevel down Jack(s). In my use the BU Jack requires less effort to produce a shaving of the same thickness as a BD Jack. The angle of attack on the BU Jack is a touch lower than on any of my BD Jacks.

The angle of attack makes for most of the difference in determining the force necessary to make a shaving. The second main determinator of force needed is the thickness of shaving being produced. The chip breaker adds a little more effort to the equation.

Two planes, one bevel up and one bevel down, with the same angle of attack on the work would likely require the same force to raise a shaving of the same thickness. Any difference would likely be due to the chip breaker.

Of course this doesn't answer questions about Center of Effort. That may have to wait for Derek.

jtk

Thanks, happy to be here. Updated my profile. I'm far away, unfortunately :-(

I understand that lower angle of attack means less effort, I can feel that with two BU planes that I have, one 37 degree and another 50 degree included angle. However, low angle can be used on collaborative wood mostly. Otherwise, with medium thickness I get tearout even on pine. In the end, I have to stick with 50 degree to avoid any tearouts and still might need to scrape afterwards. Another problematic case I have is factory laminated beech panel. It consists of many pieces, each potentially with different grain direction. All this makes it hard and very sweaty work. And forces me to think again and buy even more tools :-)

It might be that BD with 45 or 40 degree frog and closely set chip-breaker with high micro bevel on it would require less force for tear free planing. Or is it better solved entirely differently?

[Jim Koepke]

It might be that BD with 45 or 40 degree frog and closely set chip-breaker with high micro bevel on it would require less force for tear free planing. Or is it better solved entirely differently?

I have found setting the chip breaker on a very sharp blade, adjusted for the finest cut possible, does fine in most cases. I do not believe a micro bevel on the bevel of a bevel down plane does anything to change the dynamics of the shaving process. It may help prevent wear. Some might argue a back bevel would effectively increase the angle and help to prevent tear out.

In my limited experience, a very light shaving with a well set chip breaker tends to alleviate tear out. With some really bad grain reversal I have come back against the main grain to take care of the tear out. With a blade as sharp as can be and a shaving through which you can read, a few passes against most grain will not tear out.

Not to start any flame wars, but on the firs and pines I work, it seems a bevel down plane leaves a slightly smoother surface than a bevel up plane.

325170

jtk

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I have found setting the chip breaker on a very sharp blade, adjusted for the finest cut possible, does fine in most cases. I do not believe a micro bevel on the bevel of a bevel down plane does anything to change the dynamics of the shaving process. It may help prevent wear. Some might argue a back bevel would effectively increase the angle and help to prevent tear out.


Wrong formulation on my side. I mean micro bevel on chip-breaker to make it 50 degree or more so that it breaks chips effectively. According to that Japanese professor chip-breaker works best when it has 50-80 degree bevel that touches the back of the iron at the distance to the tip of the blade slightly bigger than the thickness of intended shavings. Which eliminates tearout even for quite heavy shavings (0.1 mm or 4 thousands of an inch). Heavy shavings means potentially good productivity. Theoretically, at least :-)



In my limited experience, a very light shaving with a well set chip breaker tends to alleviate tear out. With some really bad grain reversal I have come back against the main grain to take care of the tear out. With a blade as sharp as can be and a shaving through which you can read, a few passes against most grain will not tear out.


Agree, my (also limited) experience tells me that very fine shavings can be achieved without tearout almost with any angle if blade is sharp. No experience with BD and chip breaker though...



Not to start any flame wars, but on the firs and pines I work, it seems a bevel down plane leaves a slightly smoother surface than a bevel up plane.


Then Paul Sellers is right and BU planes are advertised wrong. Good for sales but not so good to replace BD planes. I was totally convinced by advertisements and good reviews and now have 3 Veritas BU planes that share the same blade type and 0 BD planes :-)

[Erwin Graween]

Hi,

Nice review by Dereck, as usual.

I'm wondering about these new custom bench planes, in fact a bout 2 points, and would like to get some feedback :

Do you have to remove the blade carrier to hone it in a guide (like LV make 2), or is it after the jaws of it ?

And for the jointer specifically, on the toe, the casting seems to be rounding in ellipse. So how does is affect the use ?
I thinking about edge planing (no issue for surface planning). I usually shift the plane on one side or the other to get it square (using curved blade). But doing so with this plane sole form would change the length of sole laying on the edge ? From what I see 1 or 2 inches, hard to say while not having a chance to hold one in hand before buying :(
Anyone having thoughts or experience about this point (or maybe a picture of soles side to side to see the difference) ? Probably not an issue, but worth asking when in the market for a jointer plane.

Thank you.

Regards,
Erwin.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

the other possibility is this is just being way over thought. Part of the fun of all this is figuring it out for yourself. If this thread and this exercise hasn't shown that there are differences of opinions, I'm not sure what will. There is no right or wrong answer, and how you work, how you stand, how you sharpen, the kind of wood you use, the air you breath and the kind of beer you drink will all have an influence on the outcome.

The other thought that has always intrigued me is as I've looked at 100's of catalogs, from today's to 100 years old, and bought and sold hundreds of planes, search hundreds of tool shops and drooled over thousands and thousands of photos, the ratio of BD versus BU planes tell me a great deal about what has been preferred by craftsman for well over 100 years.

I hear you. And that is probably right. But my curiosity to know why it is like this and how right it is for me makes some pain in the head area. :-)

Plus I can afford to buy first BD plane only next month. Enough time to over think suddenly... I will keep my BU planes anyway, I already like them a lot. How fast I need BD plane and which one are the questions in my head. Probably, Veritas custom bench plane #4 1/2 with standard frog angle would be nice to try and learn next.

[Derek Cohen]

I hear you. And that is probably right. But my curiosity to know why it is like this and how right it is for me makes some pain in the head area. :-)

Plus I can afford to buy first BD plane only next month. Enough time to over think suddenly... I will keep my BU planes anyway, I already like them a lot. How fast I need BD plane and which one are the questions in my head. Probably, Veritas custom bench plane #4 1/2 with standard frog angle would be nice to try and learn next.

Hi Andrey

Without doing any more testing, I think that it is easy to make a deduction - and frankly I do not have the time for for testing at present as I have little enough time on weekends, and what little enough is currently dedicated to my current build.

When I chose to purchase a 42 degree frog for the Custom #4 I was sending out a message. Perhaps on the more experienced users would have recognised what I was stating: I was prepared to sink my money into my belief that the chipbreaker was capable of controlling tearout in a low cutting angle. The reason for the low cutting angle was that it would produce a cleaner surface on softer woods, but that it would also perform as well on hard woods.

Now a BU smoother with a high cutting angle (say 62 degrees included) will plane most anything from the North Americas, and on hardwoods I would argue that you would not tell the surface differences against a chipbreakered lower cutting angle ... especially after a finish goes on.

So which would be easier to push? Hell, six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. You are taking fine shavings, and there would not be a lot in it, not enough to make it the deciding factor. The high cutting angle on the BU is not the same as a high cutting angle on a BD plane. You can easily tell the difference when you swap frogs on a LN bench plane. I have a LN #3, purchased with a 55 degree frog. I did not get on with this combination: the angle was not high enough to control tearout on my local woods, and the plane was hard to push (with an unwaxed sole). I changed to a 50 degree frog - could not go lower because I was using a #4 handle, and the 45 degree frog would not fit with this. But it was not a lot different ... better, but not enough, because by now I was reasonably proficient at setting the chipbreaker. I worked out a way to modify the #4 handle to fit the 45 degree frog, and so ended up with one.

A couple of last comments: firstly, BU planes with high cutting angles make excellent smoothers. BU planes are excellent planes. They are easier to set up than anything else, and their performance can be superb, better than 90% of woodworkers need for the woods they work. Secondly, ignore the silly sprouting of advice given by Paul Sellers about BU planes. He has no clue - he achieves poor performances with them since he only hones his blades at about 30 degrees - which means that he is cutting with very low angles. Not good. Thirdly, I must warn that the 42 degree frog on the Custom #4 is not a beginners choice. It takes a little more accuracy in placement for the chipbreaker to work. I suspect that the lower the frog angle, the higher the leading edge of the chipbreaker needs to be, or the closer to the edge of the blade one needs to get (relative to the desired thickness of the shaving).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Hi,

Nice review by Dereck, as usual.

I'm wondering about these new custom bench planes, in fact a bout 2 points, and would like to get some feedback :

Do you have to remove the blade carrier to hone it in a guide (like LV make 2), or is it after the jaws of it ?

And for the jointer specifically, on the toe, the casting seems to be rounding in ellipse. So how does is affect the use ?
I thinking about edge planing (no issue for surface planning). I usually shift the plane on one side or the other to get it square (using curved blade). But doing so with this plane sole form would change the length of sole laying on the edge ? From what I see 1 or 2 inches, hard to say while not having a chance to hold one in hand before buying :(
Anyone having thoughts or experience about this point (or maybe a picture of soles side to side to see the difference) ? Probably not an issue, but worth asking when in the market for a jointer plane.

Thank you.

Regards,
Erwin.

To hone: the following is from the article(s) ..

Do not remove the screws – just loosen them. Contrary to advice, you will remove the blade carrier. Why? Because setting the chipbreaker requires minute amounts of placement, and it is something one must do by eye.


Once the blade has been sharpened, and the chipbreaker is to be replaced, you are going to reverse the process. However, an observation by Chris Schwarz (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/best-adjust-cap-iron-veritas-plane). Chris suggested first securing the blade carrier screw, and then the chipbreaker screw. Doing so the other way around will cause a tiny bit of movement of the chipbreaker, which is relevant when one is talking in fractions of a millimeter at the leading edge of the blade.

Below, loosening the screws ..


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2_html_5b982e8d.jpg


Now, if you hold the blade and chipbreaker apart with your fingers …


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2_html_3547d885.jpg


… there is sufficient space to slide the chipbreaker forward and over the end of the blade without touching the edge.




http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2_html_m39825099.jpg


Of course, you will reverse this process when bringing them together. Just ensure that the slots in the blade carrier align with the slot in the blade.


And for the jointer specifically, on the toe, the casting seems to be rounding in ellipse. So how does is affect the use ?
I thinking about edge planing (no issue for surface planning). I usually shift the plane on one side or the other to get it square (using curved blade). But doing so with this plane sole form would change the length of sole laying on the edge ? From what I see 1 or 2 inches, hard to say while not having a chance to hold one in hand before buying :(


I very much doubt that you would notice any reduction in registration area.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Reinis Kanders]

I have all of these planes LV custom, LV old style bevel down, LV bevel up, etc. I have not tried any Lie Nielsen. At the end of it all I prefer old Stanleys and wood jack and try plane. I also like old german style woodies. I do everything, but resaw by hand.

LV custom planes have the piddly hex screw cap iron adjustment. One day I will lose the screw and I am sure it is metric:)

In 4 1/2 size I have old Millers Falls and that plane works well and takes shavings in curly maple like Brian was showing with smoothing Kanna in the other thread where he is building jewelry cabinet.
From Veritas I prefer their old style bevel down plane because chipbreaker is easier to set and plane can be used with the usual grip and they are cheaper.
Woodnet has old Stanleys come up for a decent price quite often.


I hear you. And that is probably right. But my curiosity to know why it is like this and how right it is for me makes some pain in the head area. :-)

Plus I can afford to buy first BD plane only next month. Enough time to over think suddenly... I will keep my BU planes anyway, I already like them a lot. How fast I need BD plane and which one are the questions in my head. Probably, Veritas custom bench plane #4 1/2 with standard frog angle would be nice to try and learn next.

[Derek Cohen]

LV custom planes have the piddly hex screw cap iron adjustment. One day I will lose the screw and I am sure it is metric:)

Yep. That's why I recommend that one does not remove it, just loosen it.

Also, make a dedicated screwdriver similar to mine ...


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2_html_ma81ef7a.jpg


The pattern for hex keys is essentially the same as a torx head. I am sure that you could find a 3/32 torx screwdriver, or screwdriver insert

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2_html_m5bc41b47.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Then Paul Sellers is right and BU planes are advertised wrong. Good for sales but not so good to replace BD planes. I was totally convinced by advertisements and good reviews and now have 3 Veritas BU planes that share the same blade type and 0 BD planes :-)

Please note my experience relates to almost exclusive use of soft woods.
Please also note a my "slightly smoother surface" description. This is purely subjective and may be different with different woods. Most of the time if my finished piece is less than super smooth, a handful of shavings rubbed over the surface will shine it right up.

One advantage for the BU planes is an ability to quickly change the angle of attack by changing blades.

Look around for an old BD plane in second hand stores, junk shops or antique stores. One with all the parts can usually be found fairly inexpensively.

jtk

[Matt Bainton]

Derek, would you choose the new “slightly Stanley” Veritas totes for your BU planes? I was a bit confused over which you settled on now that there is a third option. I only have a Stanley No. 4 and have experienced the fatigue from the short palm section when dimensioning rough lumber. I'm considering a BU LAJ, and while I'm not scared of innovation, I am not a fan of the lack of nuance to the Veritas original totes.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Matt

There is nothing "wrong" with the Stanley handles. They have stood the test of time. However, to get the best out of them one needs to be aware of where "power" comes from - it is not from pushing downward with a grip from under the horn, but from pushing forward from the base of the handle. The LV/Veritas handles make this easier to do, especially with their original, vertical style. The choice of this style is especially where the emphasis is on taking heavier shavings, such a jack or jointer.

Personally, I would not be using a #4 to dimension lumber. The Stanley-style LV/Veritas handles offer the ability to plane with more power (they are still more vertical than Stanley handles) and then push downward and increase force on focused areas, such as a small area of tearout.

My longer planes all have the upright handles, while my smoothers all have the Stanley-style handles.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Matt Bainton]

Derek, I'd LOVE to not be dimensioning with a #4, but I hardly have any of the desirable tools for many woodworking tasks.

Hopefully I'll be able to rectify that little by little starting this new year. I'm interested in the Low Angle Jack because of the versatility.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, I'd LOVE to not be dimensioning with a #4, but I hardly have any of the desirable tools for many woodworking tasks.

Hopefully I'll be able to rectify that little by little starting this new year. I'm interested in the Low Angle Jack because of the versatility.

Hi Matt

What other planes do you have? Machinery? And what is the scale of your work - boxes vs cabinets.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Padilla]

Folks,

I did a lot of editing so that this thread could be restored. Please keep things friendly and civil.

Thanks....

[Matt Bainton]

Ah, Derek, I meant to imply that i don't own a lot of woodworking tools. As far as surfacing, I've got a Stanley No. 4, a Craftsman block plane, and a Stanley 151 spokeshave.

As far as work size, I'm working on skill building via shop projects (joiners mallet, Moxon vise, sawbench, etc) but I hope to work on home furniture such as dining table, master bed, bookshelves, and smaller stuff like boxes and an electric bass. Ambitious for sure, but I'm looking forward to the long road.

Edit: Thanks for stepping in, Chris.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Sorry, I was thinking it over and re-reading all posts before replying... Also finally noticed post of Paul Sellers that Stewie linked (will he stop deleting his posts already?). It happened to be my question there that I posted in comments!



So which would be easier to push? Hell, six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. You are taking fine shavings, and there would not be a lot in it, not enough to make it the deciding factor. The high cutting angle on the BU is not the same as a high cutting angle on a BD plane. You can easily tell the difference when you swap frogs on a LN bench plane. I have a LN #3, purchased with a 55 degree frog. I did not get on with this combination: the angle was not high enough to control tearout on my local woods, and the plane was hard to push (with an unwaxed sole). I changed to a 50 degree frog - could not go lower because I was using a #4 handle, and the 45 degree frog would not fit with this. But it was not a lot different ... better, but not enough, because by now I was reasonably proficient at setting the chipbreaker. I worked out a way to modify the #4 handle to fit the 45 degree frog, and so ended up with one.


Is it actually possible to take NOT so fine shavings on reversible grain with 45 degree BD and a chipbreaker? Because fine shavings take long time to remove considerable amount of material...



A couple of last comments: firstly, BU planes with high cutting angles make excellent smoothers. BU planes are excellent planes. They are easier to set up than anything else, and their performance can be superb, better than 90% of woodworkers need for the woods they work. Secondly, ignore the silly sprouting of advice given by Paul Sellers about BU planes. He has no clue - he achieves poor performances with them since he only hones his blades at about 30 degrees - which means that he is cutting with very low angles. Not good. Thirdly, I must warn that the 42 degree frog on the Custom #4 is not a beginners choice. It takes a little more accuracy in placement for the chipbreaker to work. I suspect that the lower the frog angle, the higher the leading edge of the chipbreaker needs to be, or the closer to the edge of the blade one needs to get (relative to the desired thickness of the shaving).


Yes, I have this feeling that Paul Sellers is like master in old kung fu movies. He tells you to master simple move for 2 years before teacher would tell you anything interesting. And apparently, this interesting is already kind of trivial after 2 years. Can work amazingly good though, with enough effort. In other words, first master BD planes for many years then you can touch BU plane :)

However, watching every video and reading every discussion on this topic I have also encountered that some woodworkers started with BU planes (good advertisement again?) and over time, let's say 5 years, they tend to use #4 BD plane most of the time. Christopher Schwarz writes that three finger grip and ability to adjust depth of cut while pushing he likes more. Which probably means that once mastered, BU and BD planes only differ in aftertaste. But then again, what exactly is it? At least now we know another flavor of it, Center of Effort.

About chipbreaker and 42 degree frog - what about chipbreaker angle? Since I have read studies of that Japanese professor, I remember that was crucial for that chip breaking effect. Could it be that difficulty of setting chipbreaker properly on 42 degree frog is caused by concentrating on distance to the blade edge primarily and neglecting chipbreaker edge shape? It seems that results might depend on what chipbreaker happened to be in which hands.

By the way, how that norris-style depth and lateral adjuster compares to traditional one? Is it easy to adjust while still gripping the toat (something that seems important to most)?

[Niels Cosman]

Folks,

I did a lot of editing so that this thread could be restored. Please keep things friendly and civil.

Thanks....

Thanks Chris, We love you!

[Brian Holcombe]

Is it actually possible to take NOT so fine shavings on reversible grain with 45 degree BD and a chipbreaker? Because fine shavings take long time to remove considerable amount of material...


Quite possible, I've taken shavings with a BD jack and BD try plane that can practically stand up on their own.

The he trick to removing heavy stock is to have three planes; Coarse, medium and finish.

The jack plane is set with a heavy camber and is planned for heavy stock removal, followed by the try plane which is lightly cambered and set for jointing the board and finally the smoothing plane is set with a very light camber and is intended for finishing the blade.

Appropriate chipper settings in all cases.

[Warren Mickley]

However, watching every video and reading every discussion on this topic I have also encountered that some woodworkers started with BU planes (good advertisement again?) and over time, let's say 5 years, they tend to use #4 BD plane most of the time. Christopher Schwarz writes that three finger grip and ability to adjust depth of cut while pushing he likes more. Which probably means that once mastered, BU and BD planes only differ in aftertaste. But then again, what exactly is it? At least now we know another flavor of it, Center of Effort.


I abandoned high angle planing and bevel up planes in 1976. There are three reasons for this.

First, the surface quality deteriorates as the cutting angle increases. This is especially noticeable in the more tender woods.

Second, the effort is less with a lower angle of attack.

Third, with a bevel down plane, a higher bedding angle is much more abusive to the edge.

A double iron plane allows you to very easily adjust the plane to the task at hand. One plane, one plane iron, one bevel, which is much to be desired for intimacy with your tool.

Around 1982 I altered a double iron plane to have a 42 degree bedding angle. I use this plane on end grain, although it has absolutely no problems with tearout on long grain. There is a difference between this plane and a 45 degree plane, but it is barely noticeable. I would not pay $50 extra to replace it at 42 degrees if it were lost.

[Derek Cohen]

First, the surface quality deteriorates as the cutting angle increases. This is especially noticeable in the more tender woods.

Agree with soft woods, however I cannot say that I have noticed any significant difference on local hardwoods. Any minor differences may end up being cancelled by the finish used.


Second, the effort is less with a lower angle of attack.


Agree


Third, with a bevel down plane, a higher bedding angle is much more abusive to the edge.

Agree (further, I demonstrated this in the Veritas shooting plane review, where the LN #51 was included for comparison).


A double iron plane allows you to very easily adjust the plane to the task at hand. One plane, one plane iron, one bevel, which is much to be desired for intimacy with your tool.

Agree, with the qualification that setting the chipbreaker does have a longish learning curve - while one can get it going fairly quickly, it takes a lot more time to extract the best from the method. A high angle BU produces excellent results on interlocked grain, and has a short learning curve. There are going to be those who want to master a new skill, and others who want an easier path.

Warren, I purchased the 42-degree frog to replace a 50 degree frog on the Veritas. I could have chosen a 45 degree frog, but I was curious about your having gone down this route, and this influenced my decision. How does it differ from a 45 degree frog? I can only compare with a Stanley #604. The lower frog does appear to require less force, but the planes are different, which makes conclusions less reliable. I am happy with the combination.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

Derek,

The planing angle has a noticeable effect on medium hardwoods, in my experience. Talking walnut/cherry, ect, not the granite you call wood :p

[Chris Padilla]

Also finally noticed post of Paul Sellers that Stewie linked (will he stop deleting his posts already?). It happened to be my question there that I posted in comments!

Andrey,

It could well have been my severe editing that removed the post you are referring to. I nuked a good 15 or so posts so that I could get the thread back on track and on topic. :)

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

The trick to removing heavy stock is to have three planes; Coarse, medium and finish.


Ah, yes, thanks for reminding. I have read that article again.



The jack plane is set with a heavy camber and is planned for heavy stock removal, followed by the try plane which is lightly cambered and set for jointing the board and finally the smoothing plane is set with a very light camber and is intended for finishing the blade.

Appropriate chipper settings in all cases.

That is more or less clear now, after all videos and books. But since I have only BU planes from Veritas that share the same blade type... BUS, LAJ, BUJ... plus scrub plane. BU planes work great for me with cutting angle around 50 degree and thin shavings. Thicker shavings are more problematic and especially with low angle blade results in severe tearout if it bites more than a thou or so. So, my whole obsession about buying a BD plane, like Veritas custom, is to be able to plane thicker and to remove that extra 1/16 in several passes without fear of damaging too deep. As opposite to hundred passes that I do now with finely set BU plane. For stock milling by hand I can use toothed blade I hope (didn't try that yet). But for tailoring width of the boards this is probably not going to work.

I enjoy buying Veritas planes, I confess in that. :-) Slippery slope of buying more and more hand planes already scares me a bit as I approach a dozen of them. And so I'm stuck in my decision given still so many options and less money. Veritas custom planes are very appealing due to adjustable mouth and threaded holes for jointer fence. I'm thinking of #5 1/2 at first, for shooting and smoothing soft pine. Then I can potentially extend with #7 and #4 1/2 at later time as they have the same blades. Another tempting plane is Veritas #6 which is longer and has machined sides all the way which is nice to check board progress for flatness and still possible to use as smoother (after watching Alan Peters too much, but I hope Veritas BUS is smoother enough for me). What your experience gentlemen could say in this regard?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Andrey

I would not try and emulate Alan Peters, who is reputed to have used a #7 for all. As far as I am aware, he had and used other planes. In any event, he used machines for preparing his boards, not handplanes.

Why get a Custom #5 1/2 for shooting when you already have a BU plane for this task? I would rather Use a LA Jack for shooting than any of the Custom planes.

It appears to me that the one you most want is the #7, since this can take deep shavings where it is needed. Consider next a smoother, such as the #4.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

I agree, for the most part and prefer BD planes for my work for similar reasons. However I have a few questions with regard to your current setup;

When you say you are having tear out problems with a heavy cut, are you making a heavy cut with the Jack plane? Is the blade cambered? Are you cutting at a diagonal that is biased with the grain? Are you reading the direction of the grain properly? Are you chamfering the back edge?

Yes, a BD plane with a chipper will help, but these things need to be taken into consideration and practice as well. Refine what you have to work with currently before you purchase more planes. I can do 100% of my dimensioning and finishing work with three planes and that is from rough milled to tear out free finish.

Finish planes almost always require a light cut. The bevel down version will have a tight chipper setting and generally work best with a light cut. Not whisper thin, or see through, but generally about .001"~.

Your jointer plane should be set for a medium cut, I take about a .005" cut with my Try plane (jointer length). The rough work is done already with the Jack plane when you pickup the try plane. I tune the faces with a try plane. This is where you will find a great improvement in work flow and speed with a proper BD plane....and quite frankly for dimensioning work from the rough, my only choice would be a wooden Try plane.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Why get a Custom #5 1/2 for shooting when you already have a BU plane for this task? I would rather Use a LA Jack for shooting than any of the Custom planes.


True, maybe I used wrong term for what I mean. I like to reduce width and make square edges of a board by laying it on the surface and the plane on the side. Shooting probably means doing the same but for end grain specifically. For that indeed Veritas LAJ that I have should be the best and shavings cannot be thick. But when it comes to using the same arrangement for cutting along the board and along the grain and to remove considerable thickness (one-two mm) then BU planes I find somewhat less reliable (luck of skill possible too). And thus assuming there is no suitable plane for that I tend to think of universal jack plane for the first try in BD planes kingdom.



It appears to me that the one you most want is the #7, since this can take deep shavings where it is needed. Consider next a smoother, such as the #4.


Thanks for the advise. Have to meditate on this :) I might sense in your response that Veritas Bevel Up Jointer in your arsenal has limited use and complemented with BD #7 for that. And that is probably the same for smoother. I also did some research based on pictures of hand plane collections that other people have, especially those who recently started. And many of those that have BU trio also have BD #3 or #4 and #6 or #7. Sorry, I rely too much on intuition for the luck of experience.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Andrey

As you are aware, it is not possible to shoot with the LV BU Jointer. However, the Custum #7 works very well in this respect. Here I am shooting bookmaked boards that are 1/4" thick ..

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/OneStepBack_html_m15577872.jpg

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/OneStepBack_html_3c67e8a7.jpg

I keep a straight blade on the #7 and a slightly cambered blade on the BU Jointer. The #7 used a 40 degree frog, which makes it capable of shooting end grain and, with the chipbreaker, coping with all interlocked face and edge grain.

I so have woodies - I have made several jointers over the years. However, I prefer the low centre of gravity and effort of the Veritas planes. They provide more feedback.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I agree, for the most part and prefer BD planes for my work for similar reasons. However I have a few questions with regard to your current setup;

When you say you are having tear out problems with a heavy cut, are you making a heavy cut with the Jack plane? Is the blade cambered? Are you cutting at a diagonal that is biased with the grain? Are you reading the direction of the grain properly? Are you chamfering the back edge?


Good questions. Probably I have to describe what I was doing in more detail. First was the pine. It is soft wood and has lots of knots. On the surface grain around knots is often present in opposite directions before and after a knot. Low angle blade did terrible job here (I verified, hehe). York pitch with 38 degree blade did much better but while shavings are thin. After that I moved from scary sharpening to water stones (1000/6000) and improved my sharpening technique further. Now I'm building workbench from factory made beech panels. Panels consist of small pieces glued together and their orientation regarding grain direction is not uniform. I cut those panels on table saw to boards. Then I laminate them to form two halves of bench top and legs and stretchers. Before gluing them together I planed their edges to make them straight and the same width with LA jack and 38 degree blade. And after glue up planed again. Blade is not cambered, only corners slightly clipped. Panels are 1" thick (27 mm, actually) and two panels glued together are not thicker than the blade (2 1/4 or 57mm). Planing also works great on surface with york pitch and fine shavings in both directions.

So, most time I spend reducing width of boards before gluing because it takes 50-80 passes to reduce width by 2 mm (~1/16"), for example. Not sure that BD plane can take 0.1 mm (0.004") shavings on reverse grain but that research on chipbreaker effect indicate that it should.



Yes, a BD plane with a chipper will help, but these things need to be taken into consideration and practice as well. Refine what you have to work with currently before you purchase more planes. I can do 100% of my dimensioning and finishing work with three planes and that is from rough milled to tear out free finish.

Finish planes almost always require a light cut. The bevel down version will have a tight chipper setting and generally work best with a light cut. Not whisper thin, or see through, but generally about .001"~.

Your jointer plane should be set for a medium cut, I take about a .005" cut with my Try plane (jointer length). The rough work is done already with the Jack plane when you pickup the try plane. I tune the faces with a try plane. This is where you will find a great improvement in work flow and speed with a proper BD plane....and quite frankly for dimensioning work from the rough, my only choice would be a wooden Try plane.

Thanks for recommendations! Refine what I have, I will. Overall that matches with what Derek has suggested. And Bevel Up smoother, Low Angle Jack and Bevel Up Jointer could be complemented with BD #6 or #7 and eventually #4.

[Jim Koepke]

True, maybe I used wrong term for what I mean. I like to reduce width and make square edges of a board by laying it on the surface and the plane on the side. Shooting probably means doing the same but for end grain specifically. For that indeed Veritas LAJ that I have should be the best and shavings cannot be thick. But when it comes to using the same arrangement for cutting along the board and along the grain and to remove considerable thickness (one-two mm) then BU planes I find somewhat less reliable (luck of skill possible too). And thus assuming there is no suitable plane for that I tend to think of universal jack plane for the first try in BD planes kingdom.

Shooting with the grain using a guide is still shooting.

The thicker the shaving, with or without a chip breaker, the more likely there will be some tear out. This may be more pronounced with a bevel up blade.

My most effective plane for removing a lot of material is a #5-1/4 that by my best guess was beat up in a high school shop class. The blade has been effectively cambered. For me it is the right weight and size. Here is a thread on scrub planes:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?215920-Junior-jack-plane-as-a-scrub-plane

As is said in the thread, almost any plane can be set up to do the work of a scrub plane.

If possible, you may want to find an inexpensive plane to convert for this purpose. An old #5 size plane might be the easiest to find.

jtk

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Hi Andrey

As you are aware, it is not possible to shoot with the LV BU Jointer. However, the Custum #7 works very well in this respect. Here I am shooting bookmaked boards that are 1/4" thick ..


Nice setup! As I mentioned I use shooting for wider boards as well, until I master fence assisted and then fence-free edge joining.



I keep a straight blade on the #7 and a slightly cambered blade on the BU Jointer. The #7 used a 40 degree frog, which makes it capable of shooting end grain and, with the chipbreaker, coping with all interlocked face and edge grain.

I so have woodies - I have made several jointers over the years. However, I prefer the low centre of gravity and effort of the Veritas planes. They provide more feedback.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Number 7 looks pretty amazing and... quite big, but good. As an alternative I'm drooling over Veritas #6:

http://www.qy1.de/img/v307918a.jpg

It has more traditional sides but different frog construction. But shares the same blade as #4 1/2.

So, for the feature it is very appealing to me either #6 and then #4 1/2 or custom #7 and custom #4 1/2. One blade straight and another cambered to cover more. Prices are 560 vs 740 EUR, interestingly different.

[Brian Holcombe]

Andrey, which planes do you have currently?

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

The thicker the shaving, with or without a chip breaker, the more likely there will be some tear out. This may be more pronounced with a bevel up blade.

My most effective plane for removing a lot of material is a #5-1/4 that by my best guess was beat up in a high school shop class. The blade has been effectively cambered. For me it is the right weight and size. Here is a thread on scrub planes:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?215920-Junior-jack-plane-as-a-scrub-plane

As is said in the thread, almost any plane can be set up to do the work of a scrub plane.



Thanks, Jim. Scrub plane I have acquired already, the one from Veritas (no surprise ;-) Together with toothed blade for LA jack it should cover that rough part. Veritas #5 1/4 junior jack looks very promising as second scrub-like and multipurpose plane. But first I try with what I have. I would not use a scrub plane to tune the width of the board by 1/16" or so. That is my concern for now and wondering how to optimally approach that. Could be that I overestimate BD + chipbreaker and it will not compensate luck of skill by buying BD plane. But if experimenting is so tempting that is unavoidable, what should it be?

[Jim Koepke]

Could be that I overestimate BD + chipbreaker and it will not compensate luck of skill by buying BD plane. But if experimenting is so tempting that is unavoidable, what should it be?

To answer what you should get it is necessary to know what you already have.

A good BD plane for a starter is a #5. They are everywhere and can usually be had at an inexpensive price.

jtk

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Andrey, which planes do you have currently?
Hi Brian,

Over half a year time I've got these in chronological order:

Juuma Low Angle Rabbet Block Plane

BU Trio:
Veritas Low Angle Jack
Veritas Bevel Up Smoother
Veritas Bevel Up Jointer
with all possible blades and toothed blade

Veritas card scraper with holder.

Vertias Bullnose Plane
Veritas Large Router Plane

Veritas Large Shoulder Plane
Veritas Scrub Plane

Last two I only sharpened and haven't used yet. Others I used with pine and beech. Initially wanted to stay with Juuma as they are not so expensive but Juuma LA jack was out of stock and I've got spoiled with Veritas LA Jack since then. Checked local markets for used planes but found mostly wooden ones in bad condition. Austria (the one with no kangaroo) is rather small country.

Before planes I was spending for two years on power tools mostly. But working with them in apartment not nice so I turned to hand tools. Probably later will rent some place for shop.

[Reinis Kanders]

So, most time I spend reducing width of boards before gluing because it takes 50-80 passes to reduce width by 2 mm (~1/16"), for example. Not sure that BD plane can take 0.1 mm (0.004") shavings on reverse grain but that research on chipbreaker effect indicate that it should.



That is way too many passes you probably end up having to sharpen constantly. Camber a blade in 5 or 5 1/2 and that should do it in 4 to 5 passes and then smooth it a bit. Even with slightly cambered No.6 or 5 1/2 one should be able to take 3-4 thousands thick shaving against the grain in a hard wood.
I just flattened 45"x20" inch poplar panel from a rough and it took about 20 min and some of it was against the grain. Shavings where about 5+ thousands during try planing with bevel down 2 1/2 inch wide wooden plane. I had a hard time to go thicker than that because I was in sandals that where slipping and my bench is a bit too high for the wood plane and a wide panel unless I am in a basketball sneakers.

[Brian Holcombe]

I'll second that, camber the #5 heavily. Derek has a good walk through in cambering such a blade on his site. Doing so tided me over for a long time until getting the wooden Jack plane from David Weaver.

Setup your Jack with a cambered blade, that will take care of the heavy work for the moment.

The BU stuff if going to be a difficult to use for the projects you have in mind, without a chipper you either raise the cutting angle or take a thin cut, or both. So I will retract my earlier advice, in this case I think you're going to have to have a plane with a chip breaker.

Imo the course of action I would take is to get a wooden try plane (have Steve make one for you) and a standard pitch #4.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Thanks again, Brian and Derek! The puzzle slowly assembles in my head.

Yes, I saw that post by Derek about cambering BU plane blade. I've got extra A2 blade with 25 degree bevel just for this purpose. Since I have scrub plane (though it is rather short) and toothed blade for low angle jack plane (coarse), I assume it should be not so heavily cambered (medium). Heavy enough to permit 0.004" shavings, right?

Meanwhile, by unexpected change of circumstances or fate I've got some lent money returned to me. And given my position (as I see it), staying at a temporal saddle point inside the slippery slope, this event could not simply be ignored. So, one thing led to another directed by by what I think you and Derek said, and I've got myself all new Veritas Custom #7 and played with it a little. And I've been reading Derek's post on other forums and beyond which is interesting adventure in itself (as reading English literature and poems that makes me so verbose).

It does feel differently and sounds differently. Can't wait to do more work with it and see it for myself. Cannot trust Derek on this one as he has different woods, far from pine and beech that I have here. My initial experiments with [freshly sharpened iron] and [chip breaker with 50 degree micro bevel] on a piece of dry pine impressed me very much. So much that I've ordered custom #4 1/2 and #5 1/2 to get me to the bottom of slipper slope already. Together with #7 they share the same blades and frogs which would allow me to have straight, cambered and more cambered blades with 45 or 40 degree frog. And the size somehow matches my goal (doors, table, bench and bed).

And while it is very widely known in a very narrow circle of real craftsmen, I would still dare to ask this question. Given that the shape of the chip breaker matters and that in the custom planes it has non-standard (non-stanley) shape, what do you do?

[Patrick Chase]

And while it is very widely known in a very narrow circle of real craftsmen, I would still dare to ask this question. Given that the shape of the chip breaker matters and that in the custom planes it has non-standard (non-stanley) shape, what do you do?

In my experience all that matters for tear-out is the angle of the very tip of the chip-breaker where it meets the blade back. If you look at the [in]famous video you'll see that the shaving deflects off the breaker maybe 0.1-0.2 mm above the blade back (using metric here in deference to your country of origin), and is "lost in space" after that. Making that steep tip bevel extend too far can promote jamming in my experience, so I generally just grind and hone a 50+ deg face ~0.25 mm high and leave it at that. The chip-breaker on the custom planes has a pretty shallow primary bevel, so as long as you don't overdo it with the tip you should be good to go from both a tear-out and jamming perspective (the older "humped" style are actually a bit trickier w.r.t. jamming).

If you're worried about messing up then just get a spare. The chip-breakers for the custom planes are standard LV parts (even though they aren't listed on either the website or the hardcopy catalog) so you can get them without having them create a special order for you. The 2-3/8" part for your planes is LV P/N 06P2005 and cost $36.50 as of February. Unfortunately the old-style breakers for their other planes are all special-order parts, which means that the P/N is different for every order.

[Derek Cohen]

Patrick, 0.1-0.2mm is far, far too close. I guess that you are unfamiliar with metric! :)

This is from my article ..


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2_html_5ee5283a.jpg


Above is a typical setting for a closed up chipbreaker. This is in the range of 0.4mm – 0.5mm. After a little practice you will be able to do this by eye.

Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2.html

Here's a link to preparing a LN chipbreaker. In essence, this is no different from the LV standard or LV custom types. Set the angle at the leading edge at 50 degrees. In the article it is 45 degrees, however the frog was 50 degrees at that stage (and now is 45 degrees).

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/SettingTheChipbreaker.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, 0.1-0.2mm is far, far too close. I guess that you are unfamiliar with metric! :)

Nope, I was trained as a mechanical engineer and worked exclusively in SI units. I know exactly what I posted. Have you actually watched the Kawai/Kato video (http://giantcypress.net/post/23159548132/this-is-the-full-version-of-the-video-created-by) that started the latest iteration of the chipbreaker discussion?

At 10:00 the chipbreaker is set 0.2 mm back from the edge (see diagram at 9:40) . If you look carefully at where the shaving contacts the chipbreaker face, it's between 1/2 and 3/4 of the distance from the leading edge to the chipbreaker face, so 0.1-0.15 mm which is exactly the value I gave.

At 11:05 the chipbreaker is set 0.1 mm back from the leading edge (diagram at 10:54). The shaving once again makes contact 0.1-.15 mm up the chipbreaker face, again gauged by comparison with the setback.

Like you I initially didn't pay close enough attention to the objective data, and put far too tall of a face on my chipbreakers. The result was jamming, and it was only cured once I started over and relied upon data instead of assumption. That's why I'm so familiar with the LV part numbers for those chipbreakers. I've consistently found that the height of the steep face need not be more than about 10 mils, or 0.25 mm (and even that's got some margin baked in).

[Derek Cohen]

Actually Patrick, the first time I watched the K&K video was somewhere around 2005. I have watched it many times since. I have also done considerable testing on distances, leading edge angles, and frog angles. I wrote the articles that started this thread. I am stating quite categorically that a chipbreaker on a Stanley plane (because their chipbreaker leading edge is about 45 degrees) that is closer than 0.3mm to the edge of the blade is likely to choke, and that setting it 0.1mm is very unstable/impractical - far better to use a 50 degree leading edge (on a common angle plane) around set it back around 0.4mm. The K&K video was not about handplanes but about a mechanical supersmoother, which is a planing machine. The results of their tests are not exactly transferred to handplanes.


Like you I initially didn't pay close enough attention to the objective data, and put far too tall of a face on my chipbreakers. The result was jamming, and it was only cured once I started over and relied upon data instead of assumption. That's why I'm so familiar with the LV part numbers for those chipbreakers. I've consistently found that the height of the steep face need not be more than about 10 mils, or 0.25 mm (and even that's got some margin baked in).

I am not sure what you believe I have "assumed".

Adding a microbevel to the leading edge is what one does to create an appropriate angle. The LV and LV chipbreakers are 30 degrees standard. That is too low. It is not about the size of the microbevel, but about its angle. The lower the angle, the further forward you need to push the chipbreaker. However, 0.1mm is too difficult to do, and unnecessary. It also limits the thickness of the shaving, which is going to limit the nature of the planing one does. Sometimes you need to do more than ultra-fine shavings.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Actually Patrick, the first time I watched the K&K video was somewhere around 2005. I have watched it many times since. I have also done considerable testing on distances, leading edge angles, and frog angles. I wrote the articles that started this thread. I am stating quite categorically that a chipbreaker on a Stanley plane (because their chipbreaker leading edge is about 45 degrees) that is closer than 0.3mm to the edge of the blade is likely to choke, and that setting it 0.1mm is very unstable/impractical - far better to use a 50 degree leading edge (on a common angle plane) around set it back around 0.4mm. The K&K video was not about handplanes but about a mechanical supersmoother, which is a planing machine. The results of their tests are not exactly transferred to handplanes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Your contention that their work wasn't about planes seems quite remarkable when once considers that the title of their video was "Influence of the Cap-iron on Hand Plane". Can you please explain this contradiction?

Also the supersurfacers are effectively power-fed handplanes. There is no substantive difference in terms of cutting action (or feed rate for that matter).

I've also experimented quite a bit, and strongly suspect that you're seeing jamming precisely because you're using too tall of a face on the chipbreaker, i.e. your experiments were targeting the wrong set of configurations and found a local rather than global optimum. I read your articles when you published them, they were actually one of the sources that initially led me down the wrong path (see comments about replacement chipbreakers above :-). For smoothing I routinely run a 0.25 mm face set about 0.2 mm from the blade, and with a pretty tight mouth at that. Jamming is seldom a problem. For difficult woods I set even closer.

Also Kato/Kawai show us what happens at 0.3 mm, which is closer to your suggestion of 0.4, at 14:00 (diagram at 13:50). The contact point on the chipbreaker face is somewhat increased, to about 0.25 mm, which is still quite close to the value I gave.

Can you please give an objective reason why you don't thing their video is predictive for handplanes? The obvious one is the absence of the mouth, but if you look at the mechanics involved I don't think there's a rational argument to be made as to why that would raise the contact point on the chipbreaker face. What would be ideal is similar videography with a mouth, but to my knowledge nobody's done that so that leaves Kato/Kawai as the best hard data available.

[Derek Cohen]

Patrick, if you can get your setting to work - and I will accept that you do because you say so - then what are you doing that is so different from everyone else. As far as I am aware, no one would agree with your recommendations. Explain you mean by "0.25mm face". What is the angle here?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, if you can get your setting to work - and I will accept that you do because you say so - then what are you doing that is so different from everyone else. As far as I am aware, no one would agree with your recommendations. Explain you mean by "0.25mm face". What is the angle here?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Let's use the Veritas custom plane chipbreaker as a starting point, since we both used that for our respective experiments.

The chipbreaker ships with a primary bevel of about 27 deg. I modify that by honing a 45-70 deg secondary bevel at the tip (where the angle depends on the plane's bed angle and intended use). 0.25 mm is the height of that secondary bevel. If I grind the secondary bevel taller than that I find that I don't get any additional reduction in tear-out, but do get huge jamming problems, and that forces me to set the chipbreaker further back along the blade. If I don't grind such a secondary bevel at all then I don't get much tearout reduction, presumably because the chipbreaker just bends the chip a few more degrees (still a "type 1" chip) instead of folding it back ("type 2").

I'm not the only one running such a configuration. I believe that David Charlesworth did roughly the same thing when he experimented with close-set chipbreakers, and I've seen recommendations to "create the secondary bevel with a few strokes over a finishing stone" in discussions of Japanese plane setup. I know there have been others (perhaps even David Weaver but I'm not positive), but those are the 2 I remember clearly.

[Derek Cohen]

Interesting Patrick.

I hone a secondary bevel on the chipbreaker at 45-50 degrees. I place the chipbreaker about 0.4 - 0.5mm back from the leading edge for smoothing interlocked grain. Typically, I am using either a LV Custom #4 (42 degree bed), LN #3 (45 degree bed), or Stanley #3 (45 degree bed - PM-V11 blade and chipbreaker). The symptom of being a tad too far forward is that the shaving becomes crinkly and starts to accordion. When it is too far back, the shaving is curly. Just right and the shaving straightens up. You say that you get straight shavings with a similar angled leading edge but with a 0.25mm wide secondary bevel. However, you need to get 0.1mm from the edge to make this work.

Setting a chipbreaker at 0.4mm is hard enough. Many report that they inadvertently push the chipbreaker a tad too far forward and pop it over the edge of the blade. I've done this as well. I really cannot imagine setting the chipbreaker at 0.1mm! I am not doubting that it could work - I've never tried as I cannot see why one would need to make the whole process harder. The results I get are good with the set up I described.

For reference, I have been participating in a thread on the UK woodworking forum, where David Weaver commented:

The reason that I don't like 80 degrees on a cap iron is that it narrows the distance the cap iron can be set. The range between too close and not close enough is shorter, and the chance of getting an affected surface is greater. That's not a problem on a super surfacer, apparently. I don't know if other people agree with me on that, but I checked bed angles with a cap iron from 38-50, and cap iron bevel angles from 45-80 (I didn't get enough effect at 45 to get a perfect surface, and I didn't like the abruptness of 80. Coincidentally, the best working chipbreakers that I've found are stock stanley cleaned up and polished - no steeper angle than what's already there.

Then ...

... don't think too hard about measurements. Set it close as you did, and then back it off a smidge and try the plane again. If not enough, back it off a smidge again. The distance depends on the thickness of the largest shaving you want to take ...

I will let others comment. They may agree with you and disagree with me. Or have another opinion. Discussion is always good.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Interesting Patrick.

I hone a secondary bevel on the chipbreaker at 45-50 degrees. I place the chipbreaker about 0.4 - 0.5mm back from the leading edge for smoothing interlocked grain. Typically, I am using either a LV Custom #4 (42 degree bed), LN #3 (45 degree bed), or Stanley #3 (45 degree bed - PM-V11 blade and chipbreaker). The symptom of being a tad too far forward is that the shaving becomes crinkly and starts to accordion. When it is too far back, the shaving is curly. Just right and the shaving straightens up. You say that you get straight shavings with a similar angled leading edge but with a 0.25mm wide secondary bevel. However, you need to get 0.1mm from the edge to make this work.

As I said in a previous message, I aim for more like 0.2 mm (and yes, it requires magnification, controlled lighting, and a bit of tweaking to achieve that). I typically gauge it by comparing the exposed blade to a ruler with 1/64" divisions, and aim for half a division.

I don't think you need to be within 0.1 mm for a 0.25 mm high bevel to be effective - once again the video shows us that the geometries don't work that way, and my own results are consistent. The contact point of the shaving was within the first 0.25 mm of the chipbreaker face even at 0.3 mm of setback (albeit with an 80 deg bevel). I don't get accordion shavings - in my experience that's the symptom of having too tall of a secondary bevel.

[Derek Cohen]

Out of interest, what wood do you work, what planes do you use like this, and how thick are the shavings?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Out of interest, what wood do you work, what planes do you use like this, and how thick are the shavings?

Regards from Perth

Derek

I'll start with the easy questions: I use close-set chipbreakers on WoodRiver #3, Veritas "classic" #4, custom #4 (with 55 deg frog), custom #4-1/2 and to a lesser degree on an LN #8 and a Veritas Custom #7. I use fairly shallow cuts on difficult woods, typically 4 mils or less (but seldom below 2 mils - ultra-thin shavings are for bragging rights, not woodworking). On easy woods I often swap in blades with the chipbreakers set further back and take deeper cuts.

The biggest variable is probably wood - I work mostly with North American hardwoods, including a lot of striped and curly varieties. While the grain can be quite difficult, they're not as tough as a lot of the stuff you plane so that may be partially what drives us to different optima.

More broadly, I think there are a couple things we know (i.e. are well supported by evidence at this point) and a couple more that seem likely.

We know that tearout happens when the shaving exerts enough leverage to separate the wood fibers ahead of the blade (I'm intentionally using informal terms here instead of the more precise ones that an engineer would ordinarily choose). Whether that happens depends on several variables, where the key ones include the stiffness of the shaving (which in turn is a function of its thickness and the stiffness of the wood), and the resistance of the wood fibers to separation.

We know from the Kato/Kawai video and other experiments that a close-set chipbreaker works at least in part by reducing the structural integrity of the shaving and thereby reducing its stiffness and therefore its ability to lever fibers out ahead of the blade. You can see this reduction easily by comparing the bending stiffness of type I (curly) and type II (straight) shavings with all else held constant. A lot of people seem to think that it works by "pushing the shaving back down", and that may happen to some degree with very high chipbreaker tip bevels, but if you compare the "no-chipbreaker" and "50-deg" configurations in Kato/Kawai you'll see that the shaving is actually lifting at least as far above the back of the blade in the 50 deg case - if anything it's being lifted up rather than pushed down. Also, the force applied by the chipbreaker will be ~normal to the contact point, so there simply cannot be a significant downward component with a 50 deg chipbreaker on a 42-45 deg blade.

Leverage is simply force times distance, so the key question to consider when determining the setback (distance from leading edge to chipbreaker) is therefore: Is the setback long enough that the shaving exerts enough leverage to tear fibers out ahead of the blade before it reaches the chipbreaker? If it is then it doesn't matter what the chipbreaker does to the wood, because you're already doomed by that point.

That brings me to the topic of wood species: I suspect (but do not know) that the "tough" woods you work have more strongly bound fibers and that actually increases the amount of leverage that is required to cause tearout. That works in your favor here, since it means that you can set the chipbreaker further back but still be able to weaken the shaving before it causes tearout. It would also explain the difference between your results and Kato/Kawai (they showed significant tearout with a 50-deg chipbreaker set 0.3 mm back. 0.4 would be worse).

[Stewie Simpson]

" If you are still in analysis paralysis mode, you simply have extra energy that’s not being channeled into more meaningful areas! "

[Brian Holcombe]

I set based on the chip, feedback is the determining factor. However, that being said I don't find Patrick's settings to be unusual, they're within the normal range for me on both a Kanna (38 degree bed, and something like 60~ degree leading edge to the breaker) and also my LN 4 with a 45 degree angle.

I used to set with a feeler gauge, though I no longer find that to be necessary. The baseline feeler gauge, for me, was .010".

[Jim Koepke]

I just set it where it works. Never thought measuring everything would make a difference.


ultra-thin shavings are for bragging rights, not woodworking

Not only do "ultra-thin" shavings help to avoid tear out when working against the grain, they give information on the condition of the edge of the blade. They are not useful for hogging of extra wood, but they do have a place in the world of woodworking.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Not only do "ultra-thin" shavings help to avoid tear out when working against the grain, they give information on the condition of the edge of the blade. They are not useful for hogging of extra wood, but they do have a place in the world of woodworking.

jtk

Yeah, I was partially kidding there. I think too much is made of shaving thickness, though. Even smoothing can be tedious when you do it a mil at a time.

The big selling point of close-set cap irons is that you don't have to settle for ultra-thin shavings when planing against the grain. Recall that the people who advocated most vocally here (notably David Weaver) were hand-tool-only woodworkers that were looking for a way to *not* have to do that.

[Steve Voigt]

0.25 mm is the height of that secondary bevel. If I grind the secondary bevel taller than that I find that I don't get any additional reduction in tear-out, but do get huge jamming problems, and that forces me to set the chipbreaker further back along the blade.

The most interesting thing about this claim is how it relates to the difference between traditional cap iron design (woodies and Stanley/Bailey) and the single-bevel design used by all the makers of premium metal planes. Traditional cap irons have curving, convex bevels, so the bevel is at its steepest right at the tip. They were made this way for at least a hundred years before Stanley/Bailey, who nonetheless used the same convex shape. In this configuration, the height of the secondary bevel is essentially infinitesimal, a point.
Modern makers have largely ditched this design in favor of a flat single bevel, but it's clear that their chipbreakers weren't designed with an ultra-close setting in mind, since as Patrick mentioned the bevel angle (around 30*) is too shallow to take advantage of the chipbreaker effect. In contrast, old woodie cap irons and Stanleys terminate at around 45* right at the tip.
FWIW, I make my cap irons with a smooth convex radius that terminates around 45*, then I put a very small secondary bevel on the edge, slightly steeper, around 50*. I've never measured the height of this bevel but I'd guess it's between 1/64 - 1/32.
Warren has said for years that the convex shape is important, but this figure of .025 is the first hard claim I've seen suggesting that the size of a secondary bevel matters. Lots of people have done (mostly informal) testing on the distance between cutting edge and cap iron, but AFAIK no testing has been done on the size of a secondary bevel. It's an issue that definitely deserves further study.

[Derek Cohen]

Steve, I rounded the front section of my LN #3's chipbreaker. The leading edge secondary bevel is around 50 degrees and about 1/16" high. I can't say that I have noticed a difference, however.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

The most interesting thing about this claim is how it relates to the difference between traditional cap iron design (woodies and Stanley/Bailey) and the single-bevel design used by all the makers of premium metal planes. Traditional cap irons have curving, convex bevels, so the bevel is at its steepest right at the tip. They were made this way for at least a hundred years before Stanley/Bailey, who nonetheless used the same convex shape. In this configuration, the height of the secondary bevel is essentially infinitesimal, a point.
Modern makers have largely ditched this design in favor of a flat single bevel, but it's clear that their chipbreakers weren't designed with an ultra-close setting in mind, since as Patrick mentioned the bevel angle (around 30*) is too shallow to take advantage of the chipbreaker effect. In contrast, old woodie cap irons and Stanleys terminate at around 45* right at the tip.
FWIW, I make my cap irons with a smooth convex radius that terminates around 45*, then I put a very small secondary bevel on the edge, slightly steeper, around 50*. I've never measured the height of this bevel but I'd guess it's between 1/64 - 1/32.
Warren has said for years that the convex shape is important, but this figure of .025 is the first hard claim I've seen suggesting that the size of a secondary bevel matters. Lots of people have done (mostly informal) testing on the distance between cutting edge and cap iron, but AFAIK no testing has been done on the size of a secondary bevel. It's an issue that definitely deserves further study.

To be clear, I don't claim to have been tremendously rigorous. After reading a bunch of sources I put a pretty high secondary on a couple cap irons, and got jamming. I went back to the Kato/Kawai video and measured (in the ruler-on-screen sense) the height of the contact point along the face, using the known projections as a reference. That's how I came up with 0.25 mm. I imagine you could go somewhat higher than that without trouble, but I decided to stop tinkering and spend my time making stuff once I had something that worked.

[Patrick Chase]

Steve, I rounded the front section of my LN #3's chipbreaker. The leading edge secondary bevel is around 50 degrees and about 1/16" high. I can't say that I have noticed a difference, however.

Regards from Perth

Derek

1/16th (~1.6 mm) is absolutely monstrous compared to the distances we're talking about here. Even with your 0.4 mm setback you're not accomplishing anything but causing clogging with that. I acknowledge that my 0.25 mm is probably close to the bare workable minimum and might not work at all at 0.4 mm setback, but a back-of-the-envelope analysis of the mechanics would suggest that you're high by at least 2X and probably more like 3X.

[Kees Heiden]

Let me add something to this discussion too.

Derek, when I look at that picture you posted on the previous page of this discussion, I would say that you have a distance set of less then 0.5 a mm, more like 0.3 mm or even a little less. It is of course very hard to take a measurement from a picture on a computer screen, but that is what it looked like to me when I zoomed in a lot. It is very hard to make these measurements on the workbench too. I tried several methods, and the only one that really worked was a digital microscope with measuring software. (For everyone, this is NOT what I recommend for daily practice, it was only for research!)

In my experiments with capirons beveled between 40 to 50 degrees, I found that a 60 degree cutting angle was more or less equivalent with a 0.1 mm setting of the capiron. A 55 degree cutting angle equivalent to a 0.2 mm setting. Combine these findings with the Kato video, and I think that 0.4 mm is a bit too much, unless the wood is cooperative.

Patrick, I have also thought hard about what makes the capiron tick. How does it really work? When I meassured the forces on the iron, I saw that the vertical force is decidedly negative for a 45 degree cutting angle. In other words, the shaving pushes the iron downwards, or better to say, the iron pushes the shaving upwards. This leads to tearout, the shaving is pushed out of the wood. When you increase the cutting angle, this negative force is strongly reduced and I even got positive values in my test wood at a cutting angle of 60 degrees. In other words, the iron doesn't lift the shaving up anymore, thus the reduction in tearout.

With the capiron a different effect could be seen. The negative vertical force was only reduced a very little bit. But this setup is equally capable of reducing tearout, so the mechanism must be something else. I also don't think the capiron is "breaking" the shaving. A broken shaving has lost its integrity and can't push on the iron anymore. That would also lead to a reduced negative vertical force.

What I think, but can't really proove, is this theory: The shaving slides up the cutting iron and then meets the capiron which bends it a little further. This creates a resistance in the path of the shaving, it rubs and it rubs harder because of the extra bend. This resistance is a force directed back in the direction where the shaving comes from. And I think this is the force that supports the shaving and reduces the tearout. This rubbing theory is supported by the Kato video (you can see how the shaving is compressed by the capiron, while you don't see anything breaking in the shaving) and the measurements they did on the wear pattern on the front of the capiron.

BTW, when you have troubles with a clogging mouth, then there is a simple cure. Open up the mouth. Wooden smoothing planes always had a relatively wide mouth, much wider then it should have been to prevent tearout.

Links to my articles:
http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/cap_iron_study_by_kees_van_der.html

http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/mechanics_of_chipbreakers.html

The Kato article:

http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/review_of_cap_iron_study.html

A study from the Walker and Goodchild was done in 1960 (Experiments at rectilinear cutting) and they looked at various cutting angles. They also saw that reduction of vertical force with increasing cutting angle.

[Warren Mickley]

Peter Nicholson was a mathematician and a former London cabinetmaker in 1812 when he wrote "The basil of the cover must be rounded and not flat as that of the iron is." It is surprising how many with little training or experience think they know better.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, when I look at that picture you posted on the previous page of this discussion, I would say that you have a distance set of less then 0.5 a mm, more like 0.3 mm or even a little less. It is of course very hard to take a measurement from a picture on a computer screen, but that is what it looked like to me when I zoomed in a lot. It is very hard to make these measurements on the workbench too. I tried several methods, and the only one that really worked was a digital microscope with measuring software. (For everyone, this is NOT what I recommend for daily practice, it was only for research!)

Hi Kees

I do not measure the settings, so my 0.4-0.5mm was an estimate based on those photos. You could be right. What I should do is measure the set ups I have, which are working, and see what they are.

Patrick, I will configure one of my spare LV chipbreakers, and compare the performance with my existing set up. I was very tempted today, but too busy building drawers to stop.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Let me add something to this discussion too.

In my experiments with capirons beveled between 40 to 50 degrees, I found that a 60 degree cutting angle was more or less equivalent with a 0.1 mm setting of the capiron. A 55 degree cutting angle equivalent to a 0.2 mm setting. Combine these findings with the Kato video, and I think that 0.4 mm is a bit too much, unless the wood is cooperative.

Patrick, I have also thought hard about what makes the capiron tick. How does it really work? When I meassured the forces on the iron, I saw that the vertical force is decidedly negative for a 45 degree cutting angle. In other words, the shaving pushes the iron downwards, or better to say, the iron pushes the shaving upwards. This leads to tearout, the shaving is pushed out of the wood. When you increase the cutting angle, this negative force is strongly reduced and I even got positive values in my test wood at a cutting angle of 60 degrees. In other words, the iron doesn't lift the shaving up anymore, thus the reduction in tearout.

With the capiron a different effect could be seen. The negative vertical force was only reduced a very little bit. But this setup is equally capable of reducing tearout, so the mechanism must be something else. I also don't think the capiron is "breaking" the shaving. A broken shaving has lost its integrity and can't push on the iron anymore. That would also lead to a reduced negative vertical force.

What I think, but can't really proove, is this theory: The shaving slides up the cutting iron and then meets the capiron which bends it a little further. This creates a resistance in the path of the shaving, it rubs and it rubs harder because of the extra bend. This resistance is a force directed back in the direction where the shaving comes from. And I think this is the force that supports the shaving and reduces the tearout. This rubbing theory is supported by the Kato video (you can see how the shaving is compressed by the capiron, while you don't see anything breaking in the shaving) and the measurements they did on the wear pattern on the front of the capiron.

There are two problems with that theory. Note that I'm not saying it's wrong, because I don't see clear evidence either way, only explaining why it doesn't seem likely to be the sole or even primary mechanism:

1. If that were true, then you'd need angles greater than 50 degrees at the chipbreaker tip. When you put a 50 deg bevel on a chipbreaker and mate it to a 42- or 45-deg bed, the resulting net angle is 92-95 deg. In other words, almost vertical. The chipbreaker is therefore pushing the shaving almost directly forward, not down. A forward force above the plane of the wood imparts a bending moment that promotes tearout if anything. Friction as the shaving moves past the chipbreaker face will contribute a downward component, but that component is highly variable across both time due to stick/slip and across woods due to different friction coefficients. If the chipbreaker were really working by pushing the shaving down then one or more of the following should be true: Either a 50 deg bevel should be insufficient on a 45-degree bed, or we should see both "chattery tearout" (due to stick/slip) and extremely variable results as f(friction coefficient), with low-friction woods being much worse. None of those are true, and so rudimentary Newtonian mechanics (the distances involved are small, but not that small :-) suggest that the "push down hypothesis" is at best a partial contributor. I personally think that it may explain why Kato/Kawai saw better results at 80 deg, though.

2. It doesn't explain why slightly higher bed angles also help, as you noted above. A 55 deg blade certainly isn't pushing the shaving *down* appreciably more than a 45 deg one, and yet it can mitigate tearout. Draw the free-body diagram for the shaving (paying close attention to the forces and bending moment at the "root" end, since those are what act to cause any tearout) and you'll see what I mean.

The explanation that IS consistent with both of the above is that tearout is prevented when the chip is broken (i.e. when it loses stiffness to the point where it can't lever out fibers ahead of the blade). That's why I keep saying that I think that's the principal mode of action. It's the best fit to all of the observations on hand. It also explains why the shaving "type" (curly vs straight vs accordion) is so strongly correlated with tearout mitigation.

[Stewie Simpson]

Human Body DesignThree engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body.

One said, “It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints.”

Another said, “No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous systems many thousands of electrical connections.”

The last said, “Actually it was a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?”

[Mel Fulks]

Silly....but funny! Concept has been around on the continents a long time.

[Stewie Simpson]

Working by hand is not engineering. Aim for too tight a tolerance with your thicknessing and you’ll only be dismayed to see it has moved after you’ve polished off your pot of tea.

http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/this-is-hand-tool-woodworking/

[Patrick Chase]

Human Body Design

Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body.

One said, “It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints.”

Another said, “No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous systems many thousands of electrical connections.”

The last said, “Actually it was a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?”

Wow, in my 26 years as either an engineering student or a professional I had *never* heard that joke [sarcasm]. Come on, I know you can do better.

Very nice saw build over in the other thread BTW.

[Patrick Chase]

Working by hand is not engineering. Aim for too tight a tolerance with your thicknessing and you’ll only be dismayed to see it has moved after you’ve polished off your pot of tea.

http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/this-is-hand-tool-woodworking/


...except of course that this thread is about tolerances in the assembly of metal handplanes. I think you're off your game a bit today, Stewie. Time to step it up a little.

[Kees Heiden]

We are probably never going to find an absolute answer. But I think you forgot something. In the high angle planes, the vertical force is seriously reduced. When the blade isn't levering the shaving upwards anymore, then you can't get tearout. So, the total force vector on the tip of the blade becomes more horizontal and less vertical. This allready works on a 55 degree angle.

I think it is all about balance. During tearout the wood is only just not strong enough to stay together. Small changes in the setup, like raising the bedding angle 10 degrees, or setting the capiron a tenth of a mm closer, shifts the balance in just the right direction and the bonding strength between the wood fibres is enough. That would explain why a less then ideal angle reduces the cantilever enough to make it work.

When I look at the Kato video I still don't see anthing like a breaking shaving. Which isn't much of evidence either.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

In my experience all that matters for tear-out is the angle of the very tip of the chip-breaker where it meets the blade back. If you look at the [in]famous video you'll see that the shaving deflects off the breaker maybe 0.1-0.2 mm above the blade back (using metric here in deference to your country of origin), and is "lost in space" after that. Making that steep tip bevel extend too far can promote jamming in my experience, so I generally just grind and hone a 50+ deg face ~0.25 mm high and leave it at that. The chip-breaker on the custom planes has a pretty shallow primary bevel, so as long as you don't overdo it with the tip you should be good to go from both a tear-out and jamming perspective (the older "humped" style are actually a bit trickier w.r.t. jamming).

If you're worried about messing up then just get a spare. The chip-breakers for the custom planes are standard LV parts (even though they aren't listed on either the website or the hardcopy catalog) so you can get them without having them create a special order for you. The 2-3/8" part for your planes is LV P/N 06P2005 and cost $36.50 as of February. Unfortunately the old-style breakers for their other planes are all special-order parts, which means that the P/N is different for every order.

Thanks, Patrick, just what I needed. Somehow, I did it by intuition with [in]famous video playing in my head. Decided to start with 50-55 degree micro bevel for 45 degree frog. I was afraid that I would make it too little, so I allowed it to reflect some more light, probably around 0.3 mm is what I have. This confirms nicely with your knowledge.

However, I didn't bother much with the mouth size. Worked great even with fully opened mouth on Veritas custom, as it has sliding toe. Somewhere I picked up that one of three methods to reduce tear out works great (being 1. thin shavings 2. bigger cutting angle and close mouth 3. close-set chip-breaker). Using two of them doesn't give double effect. I guess, you just wanted it to be reasonably small, just in case.

Yep, I have seen the option to order them extra. Didn't know it is harder to get them for non-custom Veritas BD planes (was drooling over #6 for some time). Good to know!


Peter Nicholson was a mathematician and a former London cabinetmaker in 1812 when he wrote "The basil of the cover must be rounded and not flat as that of the iron is." It is surprising how many with little training or experience think they know better.

So, this is now about shape. Round shape would present different angle depending on the distance the shaving goes up. This might result in less force needed to push the plane than for straight bevel on the chip breaker. Kind of, lower layer of the shaving meets bigger angle because it is closer to the fibers that might tear out.

Another idea is that this way it could somehow accommodate bigger range of shaving thicknesses.

Or maybe it just easier this way to make air tight contact between the two.

By honing it free hand one can make it slightly round. But then the size of premium chip breaker bevel is not so big and high to allow similar to old style chip breaker curvature. Anybody tried that?

[Derek Cohen]

By honing it free hand one can make it slightly round. But then the size of premium chip breaker bevel is not so big and high to allow similar to old style chip breaker curvature. Anybody tried that?

Yes, as I mentioned above, I have done this to a LN chipbreaker. The secondary bevel is about 1/16", I'm guessing (which appears to be larger than used by Patrick) - I need to go and take some measurements of the settings I have on the chipbreakers in use. The settings all work. I cannot say that there is a noticeable difference with the rounded leading edge - however I shall do some comparisons when I get a chance.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

However, I didn't bother much with the mouth size. Worked great even with fully opened mouth on Veritas custom, as it has sliding toe. Somewhere I picked up that one of three methods to reduce tear out works great (being 1. thin shavings 2. bigger cutting angle and close mouth 3. close-set chip-breaker). Using two of them doesn't give double effect. I guess, you just wanted it to be reasonably small, just in case.

The nice thing about the Veritas custom is that it's super easy to vary the mouth size.

The only thing to be aware of is that the frog and mouth can get out of parallel (this is a potential issue on almost all metal planes, including Bed Rocks). The symptom is that the mouth closes down unevenly, and the fix is to pull the blade out, loosen the two screws that hold the frog down, and twist it in the appropriate direction. The machining tolerances on these planes are so tight that you can typically avoid the problem altogether by biasing the frog all the way forward or all the way back w.r.t. both screws (doesn't matter which) - you only get trouble when it's biased one way on one side and the other on the opposite side.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Yes, as I mentioned above, I have done this to a LN chipbreaker. The secondary bevel is about 1/16", I'm guessing (which appears to be larger than used by Patrick) - I need to go and take some measurements of the settings I have on the chipbreakers in use. The settings all work. I cannot say that there is a noticeable difference with the rounded leading edge - however I shall do some comparisons when I get a chance.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Right, indeed, my apologies. We just not sure what 1/16" means in this case. If it is what I think it is, then it might be too much for LV custom chipbreaker. They do warn in the manual that it should not be grinded too much because that would make it shorter and depth adjuster (that is connected strictly to the hole on it) will not be able to bring it forward enough.

[Patrick Chase]

Right, indeed, my apologies. We just not sure what 1/16" means in this case. If it is what I think it is, then it might be too much for LV custom chipbreaker. They do warn in the manual that it should not be grinded too much because that would make it shorter and depth adjuster (that is connected strictly to the hole on it) will not be able to bring it forward enough.

The Norris adjusters on those planes have a lot of range - you'd have to do some serious grinding for that to be an issue, particularly on the sort of plane where you'd be messing with close-set chipbreakers (which imply small cut depth and therefore limited blade extension).

The bigger problem is that the preload that ensures that the tip of the chipbreaker is actually pushing against the back of the blade comes from an angled ledge that's maybe 3-4 mm wide (going from memory as I'm at work). You really don't want to be grinding much of that away.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

The Norris adjusters on those planes have a lot of range - you'd have to do some serious grinding for that to be an issue, particularly on the sort of plane where you'd be messing with close-set chipbreakers (which imply small cut depth and therefore blade extension).

The bigger problem is that the preload that ensures that the tip of the chipbreaker is actually pushing against the back of the blade comes from an angled ledge that's maybe 3-4 mm wide (going from memory as I'm at work). You really don't want to be grinding much of that away.

OK, hopefully there is enough.

And how would you grind chip breaker if you have camber on the iron? My understanding that chip breaker stays straight, e.g. follows the shape of the sole. Or should it be curved as well?

[Kees Heiden]

Keep the chipbreaker straight.

[Patrick Chase]

OK, hopefully there is enough.

And how would you grind chip breaker if you have camber on the iron? My understanding that chip breaker stays straight, e.g. follows the shape of the sole. Or should it be curved as well?

I don't camber (in the sense of putting a radius on the leading edge) blades that will be used for shallow cuts with close-set chipbreakers. I keep most of the edge straight and relieve the corners by a few mils, in which case a straight chipbreaker works fine. I use a process similar to the one that Stewie described earlier in this thread.

[Derek Cohen]

I don't camber (in the sense of putting a radius on the leading edge) blades that will be used for shallow cuts with close-set chipbreakers. I keep most of the edge straight and relieve the corners by a few mils, in which case a straight chipbreaker works fine. I use a process similar to the one that Stewie described earlier in this thread.

My practice has long been to camber the blade and not clip the corners. I finish off the plane, and a camber is more forgiving.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

By the way, does it mean that chip-breaker is set relative to the sole rather then to the blade tip?

I mean it has to be set about the same distance away from the tip as intended shavings thickness. Blade projection is set about the same distance out of the sole as intended shavings thickness. So, why not to set both at the same time?

Some clever idea for even more expensive planes, that is. Especially nice for BD planes as blade back is staying in the same geometrical plane. Basically, one just needs long and sharp cap lever, hehe. And with some micro adjustment it can do to stanley style chip-breaker what stanley metal planes did to woodies - ease of adjustability. Ultimate custom planing hand tool! :D

[Derek Cohen]

Here are some photos, as promised.

The plane in use is a LN #3. Frog is 45 degrees (the handles are a modified #4 size). The wood is curly/fiddleback Marri, which is pretty hard and extremely interlocked.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/1a_zpszlfq5cdb.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/2a_zpsf9dv2rcc.jpg

The chipbreaker has been modified to be rounded at the leading edge, with a 1mm high secondary bevel at 50 degrees. Looking at the pictures, I would estimate it to be about 0.3mm back. What do you think?

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/3a_zpsmaxqvjox.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/4a_zpso0g1n0a1.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Here are some photos, as promised.

The plane in use is a LN #3. Frog is 45 degrees (the handles are a modified #4 size). The wood is curly/fiddleback Marri, which is pretty hard and extremely interlocked.

The chipbreaker has been modified to be rounded at the leading edge, with a 1mm high secondary bevel at 50 degrees. Looking at the pictures, I would estimate it to be about 0.3mm back. What do you think?

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/3a_zpsmaxqvjox.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

From this picture I can measure in pixels that it is 0.39 mm with maximum error of +/- 0.1 mm. My feeling is that it is closer to 0.35. So yes, can be like 0.3 mm. What was the thickness of the shavings? :)

[Derek Cohen]

Andrey, I have no idea what the thickness of the shavings are. I took the pics to show that they were straight and the the chipbreaker was working. And then measured the chipbreaker setting or, at least offered up photos for examination.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Andrey, I have no idea what the thickness of the shavings are. I took the pics to show that they were straight and the the chipbreaker was working. And then measured the chipbreaker setting or, at least offered up photos for examination.

Thanks for the pictures, Derek!

I asked about thickness because I also observe the following. When starting planing not yet flat surface it is not possible to get full depth shaving. Because of the high spots and low spots and they are of different heights. At that moment I see curly shavings. Once it comes close to the full depth full length it straightens up.

It might be obvious thing but I prefer to note all details, however foolish they might seem. It serves me much better to play a fool and not assume that something is obvious or clear to me. Even overly foolish can be helpful sometimes, thus the smiley. :) (In my school it would sometimes come close to insult but it was accepted as important and humorous part of the process of getting better understanding, that's what we were after.) I feel the need to say that, no disrespect here. I'm very honored to be part of any discussion that brings the knowledge. And equally thankful to every one.

[Kees Heiden]

I only get straight shavings when they are somewhat thicker. Thin ones like to curl.

My highly calibrated eye :p recognises that chipbreaker at 0.1 mm from the edge. The ruler is out of focus, so can't be used for comparison.

[Patrick Chase]

My practice has long been to camber the blade and not clip the corners. I finish off the plane, and a camber is more forgiving.

Regards from Perth

Derek

This isn't either/or - there are a range of options between "camber" and "clipped corners". In particular you can easily put a slight radius on each of the corners while leaving the center of the blade straight. That's what I typically do with smoothers and jointers, and that's also what Stewie described.

[Patrick Chase]

Here are some photos, as promised.

The plane in use is a LN #3. Frog is 45 degrees (the handles are a modified #4 size). The wood is curly/fiddleback Marri, which is pretty hard and extremely interlocked.





The chipbreaker has been modified to be rounded at the leading edge, with a 1mm high secondary bevel at 50 degrees. Looking at the pictures, I would estimate it to be about 0.3mm back. What do you think?

[pictures snipped]

Regards from Perth

Derek

Looks good! I eyeball the setback at more like 0.2 mm or even a bit less in blade center, and a little more at the edges. It's a little hard to tell because there appears to be some wood dust in the corner between the chipbreaker edge and the blade back towards the center, and that causes under-estimation (I have a 4X magnifier with ringlight on my bench, and I also use a scale that's graduated in 1/64ths, both of which make things a little easier)

That's pretty close to how I configure my own blades, except for the higher leading-edge bevel. I take from the shaving that it worked well?

As usual Warren seemed to know all about this long before anybody else. Warren, are you in a medieval no-knowledge-sharing guild or something? :-)

[Patrick Chase]

By the way, does it mean that chip-breaker is set relative to the sole rather then to the blade tip?

I mean it has to be set about the same distance away from the tip as intended shavings thickness. Blade projection is set about the same distance out of the sole as intended shavings thickness. So, why not to set both at the same time?

Some clever idea for even more expensive planes, that is. Especially nice for BD planes as blade back is staying in the same geometrical plane. Basically, one just needs long and sharp cap lever, hehe. And with some micro adjustment it can do to stanley style chip-breaker what stanley metal planes did to woodies - ease of adjustability. Ultimate custom planing hand tool! :D

This is a fairly tricky topic, though it's one that David Weaver has addressed in the past.

If the setback is the same as the cut depth then the chipbreaker actually hangs *below* the bottom of the plane. This is so because the setback is measured along the back of the blade, which is inclined by the bed angle. You can see this in the "0.1 setback" portion of the Kato/Kawai video, where the chipbreaker is slightly below the wood surface even though the cut depth is also 0.1 mm. While there's no reason this shouldn't work, you need to be very careful about the chipbreaker edges. If they hang out beyond the blade edge on either side then you'll have a problem.

That's why I run a 0.2 mm setback, as that gives me 0.2*sin(45) = ~0.14 mm = ~6 mils of cut depth to work with on a common-pitch plane before I have to worry about such things.

This is also why I don't bother to relieve the chipbreaker edges and make them parallel with the blade - as long as they never extend below the base of the plane it doesn't really matter. I just end up with a bit less setback in the corners than in the center.

[Warren Mickley]

Warren, are you in a medieval no-knowledge-sharing guild or something? :-)

I got interested in the double iron in 1973. At that time the craft had so degenerated that even old men had little clue about sophisticated woodworking, so I learned mostly from reading 18th and early 19th century material and experimenting. Around 1981 I visited the shop of an expert on planes. He said "The term chipbreaker is a misnomer; it's really just a blade stiffener." It was quite a shock and also the first time I heard the term "chipbreaker". I still avoid it.

Giving out esoteric knowledge in the forums is no picnic. Around 2005 I wrote on some topic and back to work in the shop I thought maybe I shouldn't have given up the information. I needn't have worried- within a half hour two guys had already written to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about. In the case of the double iron people suggested for six or seven years that I might not be well informed or even not quite telling the truth, that I had never tried a difficult wood, that my work was of poor quality, etc.

[Patrick Chase]

I got interested in the double iron in 1973. At that time the craft had so degenerated that even old men had little clue about sophisticated woodworking, so I learned mostly from reading 18th and early 19th century material and experimenting. Around 1981 I visited the shop of an expert on planes. He said "The term chipbreaker is a misnomer; it's really just a blade stiffener." It was quite a shock and also the first time I heard the term "chipbreaker". I still avoid it.

Giving out esoteric knowledge in the forums is no picnic. Around 2005 I wrote on some topic and back to work in the shop I thought maybe I shouldn't have given up the information. I needn't have worried- within a half hour two guys had already written to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about. In the case of the double iron people suggested for six or seven years that I might not be well informed or even not quite telling the truth, that I had never tried a difficult wood, that my work was of poor quality, etc.

Yeah, I think it's human nature to conflate "that which we know" with "that which we believe", and Internet forums aren't a good place to untangle those. Nuances (such as disclaimers of the form "I don't know, but I suspect...") too often get lost or ignored, and the result is a free for all.

Please feel free to call me on it if I ever pull that on you.

I make no claim to historical accuracy in how I configure or use my tools, because I haven't done my homework (with a few exceptions, mostly in cases where the history is very well known, for example that "cambered blade for a jack" debate a little while back).

[Derek Cohen]

There is a long discussion on the UK forum (“Where did the knowledge of the capiron get lost?”), begun by Kees.

Incidentally, the reason I prefer to use the term "chipbreaker" in place of "cap iron" is the connotation that it has to do with 'breaking/diverting a chip' as opposed to 'capping/supporting an iron'. What do others think about this (cap iron is shorter to type! :) ).

The thread has raised a couple of interesting points: the first is that there is a difference in awareness of the chipbreaker as a tuning method on the two sides of the ocean. Due to a lack of space, amateur woodworkers after WWII in the UK focused on handtools rather than machinery. They have continued to be more influenced by traditional training, and many state that they have been aware of and have used the chipbreaker throughout their woodworking.

By contrast, woodworkers on the USA side of the pond moved away from handtools as they geared up for industry, and had more space for machines in a home shop. They began to follow discussions in magazines or forums on the Internet in later years, or the guidance of fellow-power tool advocates. Where the Brits maintained their art, drawing from the past (for tools and methods), the US had to return and re-discover all this. This is where the popular media (over the past few decades) largely failed to provide the same information as their UK counterparts. Hence the “lost” information was only lost in the USA (or those influenced by the USA – which is where one finds some forum members in UK knowledgeable and others not so), and not necessarily elsewhere.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

cap iron is shorter to type!

That is the reason for my calling it a cap iron at times.

In the Bailey patent filing I believe he mentions his design as being a way to stiffen a thin blade.

Is there any indication Leonard Bailey was a woodworker?

For him the cap iron may have been a way to not have to have multiple notches in a blade. It may have been the experienced woodworkers who knew to use the cap iron to change the lever action of the shaving.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

When Bailey designed his plane (around 1870) the capiron was allready a century old. Not very patentable anymore, so he pattented other aspects of his design. I think the use of the capiron was common knowledge back then.

[Jim Koepke]

When Bailey designed his plane (around 1870) the capiron was allready a century old. Not very patentable anymore, so he pattented other aspects of his design. I think the use of the capiron was common knowledge back then.

Maybe the answer is in the patent information, but my question would be if the hump on a cap iron was as common at the time.

Right now time isn't available for me to hunt down old patents.

My feeling is even people who do not have the scientific knowledge available to us today noticed there "sweet spots" when setting up their planes. Workers may not have understood the reasons, but they likely learned doing things one way worked and doing them other ways didn't.

jtk

[don wilwol]

Leonard Bailey apprenticed as, and then became a cabinetmaker before turning to inventor plane maker.

[Jim Koepke]

Leonard Bailey apprenticed as, and then became a cabinetmaker before turning to inventor plane maker.

Thanks for the info Don.

I sometimes wonder if the adjuster was set up the way it was in the beginning was due to standard threads being right handed or if possibly because Leonard Bailey was left handed.

Most likely it was the right hand treads being standard.

jtk

[Steve Voigt]

I believe the hump was unique to the Bailey design. At the time, metal planes were not at all common and the hump won't work in a wooden plane.

Did Bailey know about the effect of a very close-set chipbreaker? Impossible to say, but I personally feel certain he did. He radically redesigned the chipbreaker, but he kept exactly those features that are most important--a curved profile and an angle of around 45° at the tip. By contrast, modern premium makers came up with a chipbreaker that superficially looks more like a traditional woodie chipbreaker, but the essential chipbreaking features have been "improved" right out of the design. The obvious conclusion is that Bailey knew full well about the chipbreaker, his successors not so much.

[Patrick Chase]

I believe the hump was unique to the Bailey design. At the time, metal planes were not at all common and the hump won't work in a wooden plane.

Did Bailey know about the effect of a very close-set chipbreaker? Impossible to say, but I personally feel certain he did. He radically redesigned the chipbreaker, but he kept exactly those features that are most important--a curved profile and an angle of around 45° at the tip. By contrast, modern premium makers came up with a chipbreaker that superficially looks more like a traditional woodie chipbreaker, but the essential chipbreaking features have been "improved" right out of the design. The obvious conclusion is that Bailey knew full well about the chipbreaker, his successors not so much.

I don't think he could have been competitive in the market back then (when woodworkers actually knew about this stuff) if he *didn't* take that into account. The fact that we're still talking about him and not the other bazillion people who thought they had better mousetraps is all the proof that's really necessary IMO :-).

[Steve Voigt]

Derek, I really don't see a case for saying that the chipbreaker effect was better known in the U.K. than in the U.S.
The two biggest-name British teachers (current) that I know of are David Charlesworth and Paul Sellers. David, by his own admission, was unaware of the CB effect until he saw the Kato/Kawai video. To his credit, he was open-minded enough to embrace it. Sellers is still sticking to his guns and insisting that "chipbreakers don't break chips."

I read that UK thread you mentioned (until I started yearning for a lobotomy), and I saw the same thing I see in U.S. forums--a bunch of guys who now say that they knew this all along, but who were mysteriously silent about it until recently. Charlesworth even mentioned that it wasn't common knowledge in the U.K. I think that most (not all) woodworkers were equally clueless about the CB on both sides of the pond.

I've thought a good deal about this idea that knowledge of the chipbreaker was "lost." It seems right, until you start digging into the dusty old woodworking texts. There is a faint but clear thread of references from the 18th century until the mid 20th. I don't mean references that just say "set it close," but references where it's clear that the author actually knew what he was talking about.

I think what actually happened is that The Gurus, the self-appointed teachers of woodworking knowledge, didn't know about the chipbreaker and didn't teach it. I can't think of a single one. I already mentioned Charlesworth and Sellers. Cosman is in the same camp as Sellers. Chris Schwarz didn't know either, though like Charlesworth, he was open-minded and honest enough to change his mind. Fidgen is Mr. Bevel-up, from what I can tell. I could go on, but this is getting tedious.

For many years now, most new woodworkers get their instruction from books, videos, and Internet courses. If none of these teachers are teaching the chipbreaker effect, it creates the impression that the knowledge was lost, even if it really wasn't.

Here's what I'd like to know, and maybe some Creekers can help me out with this: did the earlier generation of Gurus, e.g. Tage Frid, Ian Kirby, Frank Klausz, teach the chipbreaker effect? From what I can tell, Krenov did not, but I don't know about the others. Klausz and Kirby made plenty of videos. Do they ever show setting the chipbreaker a hair from the edge, or preparing it so it will work properly? If not, it would confirm my hypothesis that knowledge of the chipbreaker was "lost" primarily among those who decided to make a living as professional teachers.

In my opinion, it just goes to show that if one is going to be self-taught, it's better to get instruction from those dusty old books, the older the better, than to spend a lot of money on videos and subscription websites.

[don wilwol]

Keep in mind Bailey's earlier planes used someone else irons and chip breakers, so if he knew (and I agree he probably did) he learned that information and improved on it but didn't develop it by any means.

[Jim Koepke]

What becomes interesting is if Bailey knew about the chip breaker effect along with others, did he somehow find 'the hump' helped refine the action?

Since others knew about the cap iron/chip breaker effect, did he then come up with some other reason for it so as to be able to patent 'the hump'?

Little snippets of history we may never know.

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

Here is a double iron form Smith's key (1816) showing rounded bevel.
327291
Here is one from Salivet. This illustration is from the 1816 edition. The double iron is mentioned on the 1796 edition for when le bois est mauvais (when the wood is bad), and the 1792 edition but I do not have the plates from those editions.
327292
Bailey was born a decade later (1825). Hand skills were well on the wane when Bailey got his first patent in 1855. I have a harmonium (pump organ) from 1857; all the decoration is machine work. No hand work evident anywhere.

[Jim Koepke]

Here is a double iron form Smith's key (1816) showing rounded bevel.

Thanks for this Warren. It looks like Bailey was able to patent something that had been in use for decades before he put it to use in his adjustable metallic planes.

jtk

[don wilwol]

Where do you see a chip breaker patent issued to Bailey? I'd never heard that before so I've tried to locate it and can not.

[Jim Koepke]

Where do you see a chip breaker patent issued to Bailey? I'd never heard that before so I've tried to locate it and can not.

Okay, today I have time to look it up.

On early cap irons or chip breakers of the Stanley ilk is stamped "Bailey's patent Dec 24, 1867."

https://www.google.com/patents/US72443?dq=patent:72443&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg8tLS1OPJAhVJ-2MKHX8fAZcQ6AEIFzAA



Be it known that I, LEONARD BAILEY, of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, and State of Massachusetts, have invented a new and useful Improvement in Bench-Planes; and I do hereby declare the same to be fully described in the following specification` and represented in the accompanying drawings, of which- Figure 1 is a top view, and

Figure 2, a longitudinal section of a plane-iron and its cap-iron, and their holding-devices, such cap-iron being constructed in accordance with my improvement.

Figure 3 is a longitudinal section of the plane-iron and cap-iron, as ordinarily constructed, that is to say, with one bend, a, only near the bearing-edge of the capiron. l

My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-irontends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed.


This came up in earlier discussions on chip breaker usage. It appears he is patenting the one, and only one, bend "near the bearing-edge of the capiron."

In effect, it may have been nothing new in the world of wooden planes. This was in relation to a metallic plane. Besides often patents are issued when there really is nothing new to patent. Another common Stanley patent we see is Apr' 18 '92. This was for the position of the large hole on a plane blade. It didn't hold up in court, but it didn't prevent it from being issued and costing someone a lawyer to get it tossed.

jtk

[don wilwol]

Thanks Jim

[Patrick Chase]

Okay, today I have time to look it up.

On early cap irons or chip breakers of the Stanley ilk is stamped "Bailey's patent Dec 24, 1867."

https://www.google.com/patents/US72443?dq=patent:72443&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg8tLS1OPJAhVJ-2MKHX8fAZcQ6AEIFzAA




This came up in earlier discussions on chip breaker usage. It appears he is patenting the one, and only one, bend "near the bearing-edge of the capiron."

In effect, it may have been nothing new in the world of wooden planes. This was in relation to a metallic plane. Besides often patents are issued when there really is nothing new to patent. Another common Stanley patent we see is Apr' 18 '92. This was for the position of the large hole on a plane blade. It didn't hold up in court, but it didn't prevent it from being issued and costing someone a lawyer to get it tossed.

jtk

Wow, thanks for the digging.

I think the invention there is creating the bend by forming sheet metal as opposed to grinding it onto a solid cap iron. It isn't necessarily a positive feature for woodworkers (in my experience it's neutral), but it would have saved an awful lot of manufacturing cost back then. I suspect that the return of the solid cap iron is as much a function of cheap CNC as anything else - there's no longer as much money to be saved by bending sheet metal, and the manufacturers have figured out that people will pay for the perceived quality (emphasis on "perceived") of the solid part. This patent looks to me as though it would pass muster even under the current post-KSR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc.) regime (assuming he's not fudging too much about prior art), and often such "cost reduction" patents have huge impacts on competitiveness.

w.r.t. the bogus and subsequently invalidated patent: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose (too lazy for accents, sorry). Everybody thinks the patent system is uniquely broken today (and in some respects it is) but this sort of thing has been going on for ages. Government intrusions into the market (in this case by granting exclusivity in exchange for disclosure) are seldom ideal or efficient. IMO the alternative is worse, though, and the drafters of the Constitution agreed, per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 - it's remarkable that this is one of very few such intrusions that was codified from day 1.

It's interesting that he specifically claims that the less-stiff, higher-preload cap iron is better for chatter than the traditional ones. That's true in theory because the force the chipbreaker applies to the blade varies much less as f(flexture), but I very much doubt that it's relevant in practice.

[Jim Koepke]

It's interesting that he specifically claims that the less-stiff, higher-preload cap iron is better for chatter than the traditional ones. That's true in theory because the force the chipbreaker applies to the blade varies much less as f(flexture), but I very much doubt that it's relevant in practice.

There are a lot of issues involved.

With more mass, there is less transference of vibration resulting in less chatter.

Bailey wanted to use thinner cutting irons and to use a lighter metal for the cap iron.

Whether the idea was workable or not, it was granted a patent. When the patent expired others made cap irons in a similar manner.

Stamping a hump was likely a much less expensive an operation at the time than machining the metal.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

I am reposting some of the information from before as it is added to related data.

There have been disagreements about the shape of the chipbreaker here. I favour the newer LN and LV chipbreakers over the thin Stanley pressed metal version. My criticism of the Stanley type is simply that the ones I have are easily flexed, and difficult to set accurately without moving. Others are now arguing that the rounded front is critical to set up (for example, Warren says so based on historical information). It is an interesting situation, and I am open to dissuasion, but at this time I dispute this being the case. I will offer some testing below. Perhaps someone else can do the same. Feel free to pick holes in what I have done - it is all in the interest of better understanding.


Two years ago I argued the case against the Stanley chipbreaker here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVChipbreaker.html Granted, this was not directed at the rounded front from an angle perspective, but from the ease of setting the chipbreaker.


The front angle of the Stanley is around 45 degrees. The new LN and LV chipbreakers are 30 degrees, which is too low to use as is, and a secondary bevel must be added. I added these at 50 degrees. The leading edge is about 1/16" (around 1mm) high. That has been a focus for discussion here as well.


Recently I compared a new LN chipbreaker which I rounded ala Stanley/vintage woodies with a straight/secondary bevel LV chipbreaker. Planes were the LN #3 (45 degree frog) and LV Custom #4 (42 degree frog). The wood is Fiddleback Marri, a very interlocked hardwood that would tearout just looking at it!


This is what I got from the LN (the straight shaving indicates that teh chipbreaker is effective) ...


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/1a_zpszlfq5cdb.jpg


The shape of the chipbreaker ..


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/4a_zpso0g1n0a1.jpg


And its positioning (about 0.2 - 0.3mm back) ..


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/3a_zpsmaxqvjox.jpg


Here is the LV. It should be at a slight disadvantage since the bed is slightly lower. Nevertheless, the shaving is the same ...


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/Veritas-CB1_zpstoli6std.jpg


The shape of the chipbreaker ..


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/Veritas-CB3_zpsyr5yw6g3.jpg


The positioning of the chipbreaker ..


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/Veritas-CB2_zpssmsaf14w.jpg


Conclusion: same as


Regards from Perth


Derek

[don wilwol]

I've come to similar conclusions. I beleive the Stanley chip breaker was meant to save manfuacturing cost. I personally doubt it was really thought of as an improvement in use. Bailey wanted a good working plane, but he needed to be able to make it profitably as well. Setting the chip breaker is important (I did some test shown here, http://lumberjocks.com/donwilwol/blog/30376) and cleaning and polishing it makes a big difference as well.

When I make a chip breaker, it will have a similar design. As Derek states, its easier to set, and just seems to work better. I didn't see Derek's test untill now, but as I was developing (deveolping may be a strong word, more like playing around) the chip breaker that worked best was the one I continued to make. I've probably only made a half dozen or so, but for me they work better than the typical vintage.


I see the question a lot, should I buy a replacemnt blade, and I always suggest the chip breaker first. If you have to spend your money, and the original blade is in good shape, you will see more performance gain replacing the chip breaker.


A chip breaker is meant to be designed to make the blade stiffer. But that function also holds it firmly to the bed. Have a good solid bed is an advantage as well. The thicker blades also helps counter any bed issues.


327367

[Brian Holcombe]

I round the bevels on mine, except on the Kanna, which has a flat bevel and steep micro bevel (I don't measure, but it's probably 70-80 degrees.

The planes that David Weaver made for me have the long sweeping curve on the breaker, they're the easiest to setup and get a great chip from, with the widest range.

[Patrick Chase]

I am reposting some of the information from before as it is added to related data.

There have been disagreements about the shape of the chipbreaker here. I favour the newer LN and LV chipbreakers over the thin Stanley pressed metal version. My criticism of the Stanley type is simply that the ones I have are easily flexed, and difficult to set accurately without moving. Others are now arguing that the rounded front is critical to set up (for example, Warren says so based on historical information). It is an interesting situation, and I am open to dissuasion, but at this time I dispute this being the case. I will offer some testing below. Perhaps someone else can do the same. Feel free to pick holes in what I have done - it is all in the interest of better understanding.


Two years ago I argued the case against the Stanley chipbreaker here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVChipbreaker.html Granted, this was not directed at the rounded front from an angle perspective, but from the ease of setting the chipbreaker.


The front angle of the Stanley is around 45 degrees. The new LN and LV chipbreakers are 30 degrees, which is too low to use as is, and a secondary bevel must be added. I added these at 50 degrees. The leading edge is about 1/16" (around 1mm) high. That has been a focus for discussion here as well.


Recently I compared a new LN chipbreaker which I rounded ala Stanley/vintage woodies with a straight/secondary bevel LV chipbreaker. Planes were the LN #3 (45 degree frog) and LV Custom #4 (42 degree frog). The wood is Fiddleback Marri, a very interlocked hardwood that would tearout just looking at it!


This is what I got from the LN (the straight shaving indicates that teh chipbreaker is effective) ...


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/1a_zpszlfq5cdb.jpg


The shape of the chipbreaker ..


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/4a_zpso0g1n0a1.jpg


And its positioning (about 0.2 - 0.3mm back) ..


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/3a_zpsmaxqvjox.jpg


Here is the LV. It should be at a slight disadvantage since the bed is slightly lower. Nevertheless, the shaving is the same ...


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/Veritas-CB1_zpstoli6std.jpg


The shape of the chipbreaker ..


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/Veritas-CB3_zpsyr5yw6g3.jpg


The positioning of the chipbreaker ..


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chipbreakers/Veritas-CB2_zpssmsaf14w.jpg


Conclusion: same as


Regards from Perth


Dere?p-='k

Yeah, there's no question that you can get a good tearout-free shaving without jamming under many (and even most) circumstances using a "faceted" chipbreaker. I see the same thing, and I also didn't know about the "rounding argument" until this thread (though I believe I was getting some of the same benefits by keeping the micro-bevel as small as possible - A faceted chipbreaker with a tall leading edge can be a jamming disaster in my experience)

I believe the argument for rounding is that it allows you to use a closer-set chipbreaker than would otherwise be possible without jamming. Of course if you can set to 0.2 mm as here and not jam then it's arguably a moot point. We'd need to find a case where the faceted iron jams, and see if a rounded one improves matters.