A tightly set mouth to control tear-out.

[Stewie Simpson]

　
A plane is designed to slice a shaving off a board. This happens when the force to slice wood fibers is less than the force to simply tear it away from the board. A sharp cutting edge is the best way to ensure slicing the fibers rather than tearing them, but for critical cuts as when using a smoothing plane for a perfect final surface, a tight mouth will also help. The fibers cannot tear up while the sole of the plan is holding them flat. The sole will do this until the edge of the mouth is reached, freeing the fibers of pressure and allowing them to pull up. A tight mouth minimizes the length of this no-pressure zone. Too tight, however, and the shaving cannot fit through and will jam. For non-critical cuts, the mouth can be left relative wide open. http://www.walkemooretools.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Understanding-Hand-Planes.pdf

[Patrick Chase]

Do you have a point?

Seriously, this falls into the category of "things every plane user should already know". Sharpness and depth of cut are both even more important than tightness of mouth in regulating tearout, and cap iron configuration is at least at a similar level of importance.

There are some interesting tradeoffs between mouth and cap iron tightness, though - if you try to crank both to 11 you often end up jamming, and there's no universally right answer w.r.t. which to back off and by how much. It depends on the wood, depth-of-cut, and a host of other variables.

Since you're obviously trolling I'll take the bait: The slides you linked to expound an incorrect interpretation of the role of the "chipbreaker". It's a widely held view, but incorrect nonetheless.

[Warren Mickley]

Years ago I had a Latin teacher who was also an ordained minister. He said preachers often raise their voices when the argument is weak.

[Stewie Simpson]

Here we go Patrick.

from the manufacturers site;

https://www.lie-nielsen.com/nodes/4201/lie-nielsen-chipbreakers

[Patrick Chase]

Here we go Patrick.

from the manufacturers site;

https://www.lie-nielsen.com/nodes/4201/lie-nielsen-chipbreakers

I don't see anything contradictory there. It seems fairly clear that Stanley did exploit the cap iron's stiffening properties to enable thinner blades, even if that wasn't the original or primary purpose of the cap iron.

Interestingly enough Lie-Nielsen's views seem to be evolving in this respect, at least as evidenced by the "out-of-box" tune on their planes. My new #10-1/4 arrived with a steep microbevel on the leading edge of the cap iron, and with the cap-iron set <1/32" back from the blade edge. The L-N #8 that I got about a year ago had a more traditional setup (~25 deg bevel all the way to the edge, cap iron set ~1/16" from the blade edge). If anything you would expect to see a less aggressive cap iron setup on a Jack-class plane like the 10-1/4...

[Brian Holcombe]

To truly control tear out one must wear a proper planing robe.

[Jim Koepke]

I don't see anything contradictory there. It seems fairly clear that Stanley did exploit the cap iron's stiffening properties to enable thinner blades, even if that wasn't the original or primary purpose of the cap iron.

Perhaps historical texts might shed some light on this. From looking at some of the images posted by someone in an earlier discussion on this might suggest early cap irons worked to add springiness into the equation. There are natural vibrations that can occur in the operation of a plane. Vibrations could loosen a wedge. Adding a cap iron may be a way to dampen vibrations either by more mass or a springing action to dampen vibrations.

Thicker blades need more energy transferred to initiate a vibration. Tapered material is also good at resisting harmonics.

jtk

[david charlesworth]

My favorite smoothing plane has a thicker blade (Hock), heavy chipbreaker (L-N) and a 0.004" mouth.

This works very well most of the time , but when faced with complex, dense, brittle timbers it can cause significant tearout.

I have come to the conclusion that a tight mouth is not so effective as high effective pitch, or ultra close C/B settings.

Currently I am trying to decide which technique I prefer.

High EP is less of a fiddle and I am very familiar with the 25 degree backbevel which I like.

David Charlesworth

[Kees Heiden]

I agree with David, a tight mouth is not nearly as effective as a high cutting angle or a very close set capiron. The high cutting angle has its own disadvantages, so it is no wonder the entire woodworking community turned to double iron planes in the late 18th/early 19th century.

There are two, maybe even three disadvantages of a tight mouth.
- Is is not so very effective.
- It only works with an absolutely flat sole. Or better said, the front edge of the mouth MUST press down on the wood. Even a slight hollow in the front of the mouth or some rounding of that edge completely negates the effect. This happens to be the prime wear spot of planes, each and every antique plane I have refurnished had a significant hollow in this spot.
- To be effective the mouth needs to be in the 0.1 to 0.2 mm range. That is TIGHT! Setting a Bailey style plane evenly across the width to have such a fine mouth is a lesson in frustration. It is equally difficult in a wooden plane. Not impossible I suppose, but for sure not easy. Try to make a wooden plane with a 0.1 mm mouth, a 70 degree wear angle that still feeds the shavings freely. And then, after one or two sole flattening sessions, the mouth allready opened to more then 0.2 mm and the effect is gone.

[Stewie Simpson]

If not already confusing enough, we now need to consider (CDA) Combined Deflection Angle of the shaving.
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/more-experiments-with-chipbreakers

[Brian Holcombe]

The mouths on both smoothing planes that I use are set very large by most standards and neither plane has trouble with tearout or with clogging. By large I mean 1/16"~ The bedding angles are 45 degrees and 38 degrees.

[george wilson]

It has already been proven by the now well known Japanese video showing a laboratory controlled cap iron experiment. When the cap iron was set very close to the cutting edge,even planing against the grain,tear out was eliminated.

If LN wants to stubbornly deny the use of the cap iron,that's their option. Plane users like Warren Mickey have proven the use of the cap iron is very effective. He won a big contest using an ordinary Stanley plane.

Who are you aiming this at,Stewie? David Weaver? ANOTHER post like this is only going to result in a big fight. A fight that has already been fought,and won by those who know how to use the cap iron properly.

It doesn't matter how many sources you can quote. They were only written by those who do not know how to use the cap iron. Any one of us could submit an article pro or con to a woodworking magazine,and if they needed the material(which they always do!),they would print it.

[Stanley Covington]

To truly control tear out one must wear a proper planing robe.

Don't forget the embroidered planing slippers.

[Kees Heiden]

No need to take it all too seriously! Stewie is just janking our chains, and I'll be happy to bark anytime.

[george wilson]

I agree,Kees. There is no need to re open a subject which has already been done to death!! Sharpening is another one which should be banned!!!:)

[Patrick Chase]

No need to take it all too seriously! Stewie is just janking our chains, and I'll be happy to bark anytime.

I agree witb Kees - it was pretty obvious that Stewie was bored and/or lonely and decided to troll the forum a little bit (and it was mild as trolling goes). I decided to take the bait for kicks and giggles, as I said in my first reply. It's more our problem than his if we get overly wound up about it.

No harm, no foul.

[Niels Cosman]

Don't forget the embroidered planing slippers.

I make sure to wear my black business socks with my planing slippers. Because when it comes time to plane, it's "business-time".

[Zach Dillinger]

I make sure to wear my black business socks with my planing slippers. Because when it comes time to plane, it's "business-time".

Thanks for the ear worm... :)

[Patrick Chase]

My favorite smoothing plane has a thicker blade (Hock), heavy chipbreaker (L-N) and a 0.004" mouth.

This works very well most of the time , but when faced with complex, dense, brittle timbers it can cause significant tearout.

I have come to the conclusion that a tight mouth is not so effective as high effective pitch, or ultra close C/B settings.

Currently I am trying to decide which technique I prefer.

High EP is less of a fiddle and I am very familiar with the 25 degree backbevel which I like.

David Charlesworth

High EP is certainly less fiddly (particularly if you have dedicated high-EP planes and/or blades as I do) but IMO the surface quality isn't as good as from a common-angle plane. If you sand or scrape everything before finishing then that probably isn't a big deal, but if you try to go straight from smoothing to finishing then it's a real concern. I personally try a common-pitch plane with close-set cap iron first, and only resort to high EP if/when that fails (whether due to tearout or jamming).

I run a >30 mil mouth by default, sometimes closing down to ~10 mils or even less (when I close down I use bits of plastic shim stock to gauge the opening). I've been able to combine a 10-mil mouth with a close-set (8 mils from edge) cap iron on some woods with some planes, but most of the time that's a jamming disaster. It also depends on the plane's mouth geometry, specifically how quickly it opens up above the leading edge. I have a WR #3 that does particularly well when configured with both a close-set cap iron and a narrow mouth, though I have no idea why - the mouth geometry isn't anything special.

My personal order of preference among the various tearout-avoidance strategies is: cap iron set, bed angle, mouth.

EDIT: My personal order of preference is: don't plane against the grain unless absolutely necessary, cap iron, bed/blade angle, mouth :-).

[Brian Holcombe]

Don't forget the embroidered planing slippers.

:D

Truth be told, I've been hunting for some good tabi socks.

[Jim Davis]

Plus one on the sharpening stuff. I really don't need to separate any Higgs' bosons from the molecules in the wood I'm cutting.

[Ryan Mooney]

:D

Truth be told, I've been hunting for some good tabi socks.

Planing with Geta? You'll have to adjust your bench height to match.... :rolleyes:

[Stanley Covington]

:D

Truth be told, I've been hunting for some good tabi socks.

How about these:

http://www.sonami.co.jp/maturi%20garatabi/gara-001-12x.jpg

Or maybe, some patterned jikatabi to add some spice to your planing ensemble:
http://img05.shop-pro.jp/PA01018/434/product/90576683.jpg?cmsp_timestamp=20150606151834

Here is a more reserved pair to go with your velvet planing jacket:
http://www.uni-work.co.jp/web/tabi/9536/6.jpg

The plain black jikatabi are also available with steel toes and even spikes for heavy-duty planing.

Here's a link to webstore in Kyoto.

Stan

[ken hatch]

How about these:



Or maybe, some patterned jikatabi to add some spice to your planing ensemble:


Here is a more reserved pair to go with your velvet planing jacket:


The plain black jikatabi are also available with steel toes and even spikes for heavy-duty planing.

Here's a link to webstore in Kyoto.

Stan

Stan,

I gotta have some with the steel toe :o. Where is the link?

ken

[Brian Holcombe]

Haha, those are awesome.....not for me....but awesome. I dont see the link?

Anything will be an improvement over what I currently use.

Ryan, I have some plans for short timber-frame type saw horses....so getting slightly lower, hah. I plan to use those as an assembly bench/planing bench for large pieces.

[Brian Holcombe]

Ken and I have very similar footwear.

[Kees Heiden]

I never understood how many people from Asia like these kinds of slippers with something in between the toes. You often see socks in flipflops on colder days! But I don't even like regular flipflops.

http://photos.amazingsocks.com/300/flipflopsk-toe-hugs-split-toe-flip-flop-socks-16470.jpg

[george wilson]

Fabric between the toes helps eliminate toe jam.

[Barry Dima]

Fabric between the toes helps eliminate toe jam.

As a firm proponent of Vibram FiveFingers, I can say that my toes always jam with fabric between the fingers.

Jam out, that is.

[Ryan Mooney]

Haha, those are awesome.....not for me....but awesome. I dont see the link?

Anything will be an improvement over what I currently use.

Ryan, I have some plans for short timber-frame type saw horses....so getting slightly lower, hah. I plan to use those as an assembly bench/planing bench for large pieces.

Have you seen the skottbenk (unsure on translation - bulkhead bench, scotts bench?) type of planing bench?

https://youtu.be/N97nZLCNhG4

Found via:

http: / / skottbenk wordpress com /

plugging it into google translate gets a very rough guess as to what's going on. It appears to have been mostly used for doing edge treatment on architectural and (likely?) boat building.

It kind of seems like you could have a frame that clamped on top of that for assembly and perhaps flat planing. Not sure, but its an intriguing setup.

[Stewie Simpson]

It has already been proven by the now well known Japanese video showing a laboratory controlled cap iron experiment. When the cap iron was set very close to the cutting edge,even planing against the grain,tear out was eliminated.

If LN wants to stubbornly deny the use of the cap iron,that's their option. Plane users like Warren Mickey have proven the use of the cap iron is very effective. He won a big contest using an ordinary Stanley plane.

Who are you aiming this at,Stewie? David Weaver? ANOTHER post like this is only going to result in a big fight. A fight that has already been fought,and won by those who know how to use the cap iron properly.

It doesn't matter how many sources you can quote. They were only written by those who do not know how to use the cap iron. Any one of us could submit an article pro or con to a woodworking magazine,and if they needed the material(which they always do!),they would print it.

George. What I am aiming at is the inconsistent advise being offered by manufacturers such as Ln and Lv. If common pitch with a close set cb is the best option available to address tear out, so be it. No argument. But no, they then muddy the waters by offering the customer a choice of bed angles. Then muddy the waters even further by moving away from cb, and offer a range of Bu bench planes that work on single iron methodology of increased approach angle to address difficult grain. You mention DW and Warren Mickley. To their credit, they both offer a consistent message to their followers.

Stewie;

[george wilson]

I guess I got the wrong impression when you started out by declaring that a sharp edge and a fine mouth were the way to get no tear outs,assisted by a link. My bad.:) I think some others also misinterpreted the post. And the other links denouncing cap irons.

About the first link: It states "That's why shavings curl". Actually,when the chip breaker is properly set,the shavings don't curl at all,but shoot straightened out straight up out of the plane.

I wish I could recall that picture a girl made of her father planing wood at his bench. 19th. C..: The shavings are shooting straight up out of his plane,not curled. Obviously he has the cap iron correctly set. But somehow,probably because of machine tools,this technology was forgotten.

[Stanley Covington]

Stan,

I gotta have some with the steel toe :o. Where is the link?

ken

Sorry. Here are several links.

Stan

http://sousounetshop.jp/
http://www.uni-work.co.jp/web/tabi/9536/index.html
http://www.uni-work.co.jp/web/at/vo30/index.html

[Patrick Chase]

George. What I am aiming at is the inconsistent advise being offered by manufacturers such as Ln and Lv. If common pitch with a close set cb is the best option available to address tear out, so be it. No argument. But no, they then muddy the waters by offering the customer a choice of bed angles. Then muddy the waters even further by moving away from cb, and offer a range of Bu bench planes that work on single iron methodology of increased approach angle to address difficult grain. You mention DW and Warren Mickley. To their credit, they both offer a consistent message to their followers.

Stewie;

OK, so not so trollish after all. Like George I appear to have misunderstood your intent.

As I know you know, wood is an exceptionally complex medium. There is no single right answer that applies across all species and situations, and I don't even pretend to understand why. Close-set mouths, close-set cap irons, and high planing angles are all effective in some situations, less so in others.

As an engineer who's read "Understanding Wood" front to back a number of times I can sling SWAGgy explanations/hypotheses as well as the next person, but the reality is almost entirely empirical. Like everybody else I try until I find a combination that works.

I personally view increased bed angle as a last resort because of its impact on surface quality.

[Patrick Chase]

George. What I am aiming at is the inconsistent advise being offered by manufacturers such as Ln and Lv. If common pitch with a close set cb is the best option available to address tear out, so be it. No argument. But no, they then muddy the waters by offering the customer a choice of bed angles. Then muddy the waters even further by moving away from cb, and offer a range of Bu bench planes that work on single iron methodology of increased approach angle to address difficult grain. You mention DW and Warren Mickley. To their credit, they both offer a consistent message to their followers.

Stewie;

Sorry about the double-reply, but... you have to look at this from LV and L-N's perspectives as well. Their customers have wildly variable skill levels, with a fair number of relatively unskilled "gentleman woodworkers" and "norm crossovers" in the mix. People-watching at L-N's showroom was a real eye-opener in that respect - there were some folks there with much more money than knowledge or experience.

IMO tight cap irons are a preferred solution to tear-out in the sense that they can deliver an otherwise unattainable combination of surface quality and tearout control/reduction. They are also very finicky and require competence in multiple aspects of technique.

By contrast, high cutting angles are pretty much fire and forget, particularly with bevel-up planes where you can just increase the bevel and be done with it. The resulting surface finish isn't as good as it could be, but it beats the heck out of an ROS, which is probably the baseline for a lot of LV/LN customers.

Perhaps an analogy from a completely different field would help: I've been skiing for 4 decades, with a fair bit of that time spent racing at least semi-seriously. I've spent many many many days being intensively coached, and I routinely make my skis do things that most people don't consider possible, without even thinking about it. If a friend of typical skill asks me for advice about a particular situation or aspect of technique I don't tell them what I would do, because if I did so they probably wouldn't understand what I was saying, and even if they did they wouldn't have any chance of implementing it. Instead I give them an objective that takes them in the right direction and is a bit of a stretch, but that they can realistically work up to from where they're starting and within the time available to them.

Teaching in all fields is made of such "baby steps", and IMO it's no different from telling a relatively unskilled hand-tool woodworker to use a higher cutting angle. No, it isn't the ideal solution. Yes, it will help them get the best possible immediate results with the tools (mental and physical) that they have.

One final thing to consider here is inertia. Knowledge of cap irons was lost to all but a select few (even DW was a fairly recent convert), and the result was that we all got bombarded with "high angle propaganda" from numerous outlets. Some of those have been quick to adapt to rediscovered knowledge (David Charlesworth gets high marks here IMO), others not so much. It takes time to change these sorts of things, and it's risky for a brand like LV or L-N to get "too far ahead" of their market. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just that it happens .

[Mike Brady]

Based on Patricks' comments about evolving chipbreakers at Lie-Nielsen, it would be helpful if anyone who has purchased a bench plane from LN recently would check for the presence of the small bevel at the edge of the cap iron. Please let us know what you find.

[Stanley Covington]

Allow me to spray some gasoline around the room just for entertainment. If you are a smoker, please do not light up.

But first, some history. Compared to Europe, the historical record indicates that planes in Japan were a relatively recent innovation, and until the 1800's, they did not have chipbreakers, or sub-blades as some call them. In fact, chipbreakers were added to the Japanese plane in imitation of Western planes as a way to deal with the tearout which become a prevalent problem as the use of sawn wood exceeded the volume of straight-grained riven or split wood. Of course, very straight-grained wood is much less likely to exhibit tearout, and Japan has (or had) large amounts of excellent old-growth Hinoki cypress and Sugi cedar to split and rive, but as the population grew, urban construction boomed, and more people could afford a decent home, the demand for cheaper lumber quicker resulted in a dramatic increase in sawn lumber production.

Long story short, the single-blade plane was the standard tool for finish planing in Japan for many centuries. Sandpaper was not used, especially on exterior exposed wood and structural members. Scrapers have never been used in Japan, to my knowledge

The first plane I was taught to make when I first lived in Japan many years ago was a single-blade finishing plane. I was confused when told this should be my first effort until a master joiner named Mr. Honda showed me the difference between the finish that could be achieved on fine straight-grained Hinoki and Yoshino Sugi using a single-blade plane versus a chipbreaker plane. The visible difference in the glossiness of the freshly-planed wood was obvious. Apparently, the back-pressure of the chipbreaker creates a microscopically washboarded surface which defracts light, and produces a less-shiny appearance. At least that is the theory.

Despite having fewer parts, the single-blade plane is much harder to make. Mr. Honda insisted that any "silly carpenter" could make a plane with a chipbreaker, but a joiner, a craftsman to whom the wood's finish is critical, needed the skill to make the more difficult single-blade plane. So that was my first homework assignment.

Using a blade by Yokozaka (well before his blades became famous), it took me several months and three efforts (and therefore three blocks of perfect Japanese white oak) to get it right. The critical part of the plane, and the one that drove me, and probably anyone who ever attempted to make one of these planes, crazy, was the mouth, and its relationship to the sole. The mouth must be very tight and precisely even across its width, and the area in front of the mouth must apply pressure uniformly to the surface being planed. If the mouth is too loose, shavings will flow easily, but the finished surface will not be as shiny, and tearout may occur. If the mouth is too tight, or the gap is uneven, the shavings will not flow. If the sole in front of the mouth does not apply uniform pressure right up to the brink of the mouth's opening, all is lost. This was very difficult to achieve to Mr. Honda's satisfaction.

The downside to the single-blade plane is that, as the blade is repeatedly sharpened, the geometry at the mouth changes slightly. More troublesome is the fact that as the sole wears, or warps with humidity changes and is trued by the craftsman, the mouth becomes wider, and stops performing as it should. And yes, the plane needs to have a new mouth made regularly. This is not efficient, so the smart craftsman saves his single-blade plane for taking only the last one or two shavings. This is the starting point for the Kezuroukai, BTW.

My point is that a very tight, smooth mouth with the right geometry, full width uniform pressure at the sole in front of the mouth (not all that easy to achieve, actually), and a sharp blade will indeed prevent tearout on many varieties of wood. However, if extreme shininess is not necessary, or if the wood grain is cantankerous, a simple chipbreaker makes the whole job much much easier.

Does the single-blade wooden-bodied plane take a thinner shaving? (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?239077-Bride-gave-me-a-Lie-Nielsen-skew-blockplane-But-which-one) Probably not.

Two denarius.

PS: Please leave the room before lighting your stogie.

[Kees Heiden]

Exactly what I found too. I did some tests with a Stanley Bailey plane like that. It took quite some iterations to get a plane mouth in the necessary 0.1 mm range. First it didn't help at all, allthough the mouth was nice tight and even across the width. It took an expensive straightedge to find that there still was a slight hollow in the sole in front of the mouth, I couldn't meassure it but a piece of alu foil barely slit through the gap. Alufoil is about 0.015 mm thick, less then 1 thou. That hollow was enough to negate the effect of the tight mouth almost completely. Later I tried the Japanese sloe configuration. It was an old plane so I just grabbed a file and hollowed out the areas under the front knob and much towards the heel of the plane, but I got bored before it was succesfull.

BTW, I wasn't looking for the optimal glassy surface, I was looking for the effect on tearout in curly wallnut and some soft maple with a knot. All that was just for the experience.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Stanley

That is a very fine commentary. There are important points that demand attention, and I will do so later when I have time.

Regards from London

Derek

[Stanley Covington]

Exactly what I found too. I did some tests with a Stanley Bailey plane like that. It took quite some iterations to get a plane mouth in the necessary 0.1 mm range. First it didn't help at all, allthough the mouth was nice tight and even across the width. It took an expensive straightedge to find that there still was a slight hollow in the sole in front of the mouth, I couldn't meassure it but a piece of alu foil barely slit through the gap. Alufoil is about 0.015 mm thick, less then 1 thou. That hollow was enough to negate the effect of the tight mouth almost completely.

Egads, Kees! You used a precision ruler to set up a woodworking tool? A woodworking tool! What demon had you writhing and screaming in it's unholy claws to force you to commit such blasphemy? :eek: I guess the time has come for me to invest in Porker Airlines.;)

[Stewie Simpson]

Stanley. Don't forget the importance of a Vernier Caliper to measure the shaving thickness.:rolleyes:

[Kees Heiden]

Ha ha! Only for controlled experiments. For real use I prefer an axe these days.

[Stanley Covington]

Hi Stanley

That is a very fine commentary. There are important points that demand attention, and I will do so later when I have time.

Regards from London

Derek


Derek:

Hope you are enjoying the time in London, and the the weather is playing nice.

I suspect one item in my tome that caught your attention was my observation that sharpening the blade changes the blade and body geometry.

Allow me clarify. If you already knew this, I apologize. Perhaps others will find the explanation useful.

While it is true that the angle of the osae groove locks-in the blade angle, and therefore the geometry should not change, don't forget that the wedge-shaped blade must be driven slightly further into the body after each sharpening to achieve the necessary blade projection from the mouth, and that this increased wedging force will almost always cause the wooden body to curve either up or down, frequently necessitating that the sole be trued.

I look forward to reading your comments.

Stan

[Stanley Covington]

Stanley. Don't forget the importance of a Vernier Caliper to measure the shaving thickness.:rolleyes:

With a digital readout, I assume.

[Derek Cohen]

Stewie

I believe that your original post was to seek validation for high angle planes, since this is what you occasionally build.

This is unnecessary since high angles are just one of several methods that one might employ to plane interlocked grain. That they are not flavour-of-the-month (that should read "year") is simply a result of recognition given to the chipbreaker as a more old-recent-rediscovered method. I have relied on high cutting angles in both bevel up- and bevel down planes for many years, and the chipbreaker coming along does not invalidate them.

Stanley's post was an important reminder that a well set but simple single iron plane on forgiving grain should plane without tearout. Setting the mouth size is still relevant when cutting angles are low (common angle or lower), but the size that is effective is akin to the chipbreaker distance - a smidgeon too far back/open and it will not help.

The other point made by Stanley is that all else - both the chipbreaker and the high cutting angle - are "fixes" and lower the quality of the surface.

More than just tearout, the quality of the planed surface is important (depending on the finish one may or may not use). There is no doubt that - pre finish - a lower cutting angle will produce a clearer surface than a higher cutting angle. This is one of the reasons why a common angle double iron plane is preferred to a single iron plane with a high cutting angle. A low angle single iron may work best if the wood is accommodating, but a chipbreaker is next best, followed by the hig cutting angle in third place.

The second reason why a common angle double iron plane is prefered is that it is less effort to push through hard woods. I know this area well! On the other hand, the high angle plane works with less set up issues. Pop the blade in and go. No hassles with setting the chipbreaker. Wax the sole of the plane and away you will speed. Plus, on hard hard woods, I cannot make out a surface diference of any importance. So why bother with anything else?

A reason I am currently preferring a double iron plane to one with a high cutting angle is that the former can work both the softer woods and the harder woods with equal ease and finish. High angle planes are less desirable on softer woods (such as the Tasmanian Oak I am using for drawer sides). I finish there with white shellac, and the difference is noticable here.

Regards from London

Derek (just back from the Borough Markets - no handmade tools, only handmade food!)

[glenn bradley]

To truly control tear out one must wear a proper planing robe.

Darn it. I really wanted to drink that coffee, not wear it :D.

[Warren Mickley]

But first, some history. Compared to Europe, the historical record indicates that planes in Japan were a relatively recent innovation, and until the 1800's, they did not have chipbreakers, or sub-blades as some call them. In fact, chipbreakers were added to the Japanese plane in imitation of Western planes as a way to deal with the tearout which become a prevalent problem as the use of sawn wood exceeded the volume of straight-grained riven or split wood. Of course, very straight-grained wood is much less likely to exhibit tearout, and Japan has (or had) large amounts of excellent old-growth Hinoki cypress and Sugi cedar to split and rive, but as the population grew, urban construction boomed, and more people could afford a decent home, the demand for cheaper lumber quicker resulted in a dramatic increase in sawn lumber production.

Long story short, the single-blade plane was the standard tool for finish planing in Japan for many centuries.


I was not around to see Japan in the 18th century, but I suspect the reason the workers did not use the double iron was ignorance of the technology, not lack if timber for which it would be helpful.

I have heard this argument before. We are constantly hear whining about how workers of former times had flawless timber and what a disadvantage it is to work with what is presently available. Consider this quote:

"the same stuffe which in time past was reiected as crooked, vnprofitable, and to no vse but the fire, dooth now come in the fronts and best part of the worke." and "No oke can grow so crooked but it falleth out of some vse."

The writer was William Harrison and the year was 1587. He also said men were once oken but by 1587 were only made of willow or straw.

I suspect guys were whining about timber quality when the first plane was fashioned millennia ago.

[Stanley Covington]

I was not around to see Japan in the 18th century, but I suspect the reason the workers did not use the double iron was ignorance of the technology, not lack if timber for which it would be helpful.

I have heard this argument before. We are constantly hear whining about how workers of former times had flawless timber and what a disadvantage it is to work with what is presently available.

Thank you for your deep insight into forestry conditions and the development of woodworking technology in pre-1800's Japan. No doubt your sources are as impeccable as your arguments are analytical.

[george wilson]

It is very true that the English had just about denuded their forests even by the Elizabethan period(Or,should I say Tudor). The English had to buy the Yew for their long bows from Spain for the most part. Oak trees in Royally protected forests were tied down when young,so they would grow in a curved shape,suitable for ship ribs.

The entire English country side that we know,and think so beautiful,is all man made: In the beginning,the whole island was densely forested. So much wood was needed for just about everything,the forests were cut away. Just charcoal burners in the American South went a very long way to eliminate much forest here,before coal came into use. Charcoal was,and is,superior for smelting iron,as it contains no sulphur. This is one reason that swedish wrought iron was considered so superior,and was imported into England a lot.

There is nothing new about making wood grow in shapes that will be useful when mature. The Ancient Egyptians tied young saplings to shaped wooden forms in the shape of the cabriole legs that were popular. When you are working with copper tools,you take every possible advantage!! BTW,If I recall correctly,there is some evidence that the Egyptians had some tools made of iron,imported from other countries. The Ancient Palestinians were ahead of some other societies in that they knew how to make iron.

All of this post is from distant memory,and some may be picked apart by fresher memoried younger scholars!:)

[Patrick Chase]

Stanley. Don't forget the importance of a Vernier Caliper to measure the shaving thickness.:rolleyes:

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=69302&cat=1,42401

[Patrick Chase]

Allow me to spray some gasoline around the room just for entertainment. If you are a smoker, please do not light up.

VERY well said. I doubt anybody will find anything to object to there, because you were very clear that your context was straight-grained riven woods as used in traditional Japanese woodworking. Almost everything we do to reduce tearout (with the exception of maximizing sharpness) has some impact on surface quality.

Out of curiosity, is there any tradition of high-angle planes in Japan, or do they go straight to the double iron when the going gets tough?

[Patrick Chase]

Stewie

I believe that your original post was to seek validation for high angle planes, since this is what you occasionally build.

This is unnecessary since high angles are just one of several methods that one might employ to plane interlocked grain. That they are not flavour-of-the-month (that should read "year") is simply a result of recognition given to the chipbreaker as a more old-recent-rediscovered method. I have relied on high cutting angles in both bevel up- and bevel down planes for many years, and the chipbreaker coming along does not invalidate them.


No, renewed use of the cap iron absolutely doesn't invalidate high angles. i think it pushes them down a step in the pecking order, though.

In my experience, mitigating any given amount of tearout by increasing cutting angle usually yields worse surface quality than does fixing the same tearout problem by closing down the cap iron set. There are however a fair number of situations that a cap iron alone can't fix, at least with my limited skills, and that's why I keep a 55-/62-deg #4 on hand (it has frogs at both angles).

My personal order of preference for tearout mitigation is: sharpen, shallower cut if practical, tight mouth, tight cap-iron, high cutting angle, scrape.



Stanley's post was an important reminder that a well set but simple single iron plane on forgiving grain should plane without tearout. Setting the mouth size is still relevant when cutting angles are low (common angle or lower), but the size that is effective is akin to the chipbreaker distance - a smidgeon too far back/open and it will not help.

The other point made by Stanley is that all else - both the chipbreaker and the high cutting angle - are "fixes" and lower the quality of the surface.

Yep. IMO the total amount of mitigation that is achievable via tight mouth set is (much) lower than that achievable using either a tight chipbreaker or high cutting angle. If it works then it's the preferred solution, but it often does not.

[Stanley Covington]

VERY well said. I doubt anybody will find anything to object to there, because you were very clear that your context was straight-grained riven woods as used in traditional Japanese woodworking. Almost everything we do to reduce tearout (with the exception of maximizing sharpness) has some impact on surface quality.

Out of curiosity, is there any tradition of high-angle planes in Japan, or do they go straight to the double iron when the going gets tough?

Yes, indeed. High-angle planes are used for extreme hardwoods such as ebony or rosewood used in making buddhist alters (butsudan) and musical instruments. Some go as high as 95 degrees for working really curly hard woods making them essentially scraper planes, but without the burr on the blade. Blades made from high-alloy steels such as D2 are often used in such planes for their relative toughness. I made one of these a long time ago, but have used it very little.

But in general, the chipbreaker is the first step, followed by higher angles.

Oh yeah, I should add the humble dainaoshi ganna, or "plane block truing plane" which has a very steep angle close to 90 degrees. I have a couple of these little guys, but find myself using a card scraper instead because it just works better. By coincidence, at the last kezuroukai I attended I saw several guys using card scrapers on their planes.

http://www.bildy.jp/simg/product/200/product_203_1.jpg

Stan

[Stanley Covington]

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=69302&cat=1,42401

I know guys that would buy a dozen of those!

[Warren Mickley]

Stanley, are you suggesting that Japanese woodworkers knew about double iron technology for centuries, but did not use it?

[Stanley Covington]

My personal order of preference for tearout mitigation is: sharpen, shallower cut if practical, tight mouth, tight cap-iron, high cutting angle, scrape.

I like the orderly way your mind works, Patrick, and agree with your conclusions.

However, you neglected, no doubt unintentionally, to include some absolutely critical items in your list: Planing Robe; Embroidered Planing Slippers; Shochu (Oops. Starting to sound like a wild New Years Eve costume party ! :D)

Stan

[Barry Dima]

My personal order of preference for tearout mitigation is: sharpen, shallower cut if practical, tight mouth, tight cap-iron, high cutting angle, scrape.

...

IMO the total amount of mitigation that is achievable via tight mouth set is (much) lower than that achievable using either a tight chipbreaker or high cutting angle. If it works then it's the preferred solution, but it often does not.

Hey Patrick, I hope I haven't I missed the answer to this; much of this talk is going over my head: If a tighter chipbreaker or higher cutting angle mitigates tearout better than a tighter mouth, why does a tighter mouth precede the previous two for you? Is this just a matter of how your quiver of planes is comprised?

[Stanley Covington]

Stanley, are you suggesting that Japanese woodworkers knew about double iron technology for centuries, but did not use it?

My post was very clear regarding the when and why.

[Patrick Chase]

Hey Patrick, I hope I haven't I missed the answer to this; much of this talk is going over my head: If a tighter chipbreaker or higher cutting angle mitigates tearout better than a tighter mouth, why does a tighter mouth precede the previous two for you? Is this just a matter of how your quiver of planes is comprised?

Tightening the mouth comes first because it does no harm to the work. It doesn't work very often in my experience, as I don't often work with straight-grained rived woods, but it's worth trying before one resorts to the heavy artillery.

Tight cap irons, high bed angles, and scrapers all entail surface quality compromises (in that order of declining quality)

[Patrick Chase]

My post was very clear regarding the when and why.

OK, I'm going to try to word this as neutrally as I can... Japanese woodworkers adopted the double iron at the same time as Japan was opened to trade from the west (19th century per your previous post). That era was a time of externally-driven tumult in multiple aspects of Japanese culture, so if it truly was driven only by lumber availability then one must admit that the timing is a remarkable coincidence. I think that's what Warren was driving at.

EDIT: Your post actually contained an argument for indirect causation by Western influence, when you said "urban construction boomed, and more people could afford a decent home, the demand for cheaper lumber quicker resulted in a dramatic increase in sawn lumber production". IIRC that process of urbanization was in part trade-driven, so in that sense both arguments could be correct.

[Stanley Covington]

OK, I'm going to try to word this as neutrally as I can... Japanese woodworkers adopted the double iron at the same time as Japan was opened to trade from the west (19th century per your previous post). That era was a time of externally-driven tumult in multiple aspects of Japanese culture, so if it truly was driven only by lumber availability then one must admit that the timing is a remarkable coincidence. I think that's what Warren was driving at.

Some points you need to understand follow. I do not have time to elaborate on them, so if you dispute them, please do independent research instead of "neutral wording."

1. Japan had woodworking technology that produced world-class excellent results long before the introduction of the plane, much less the chipbreaker. Anyone who disputes this heavily researched and physically-verifiable fact is seriously uninformed. Look up Todaiji, Horyuji. Both of these buildings, and thousands of others, were built entirely without any planes consisting of a blade set into a wooden or metal body. Period. Note that these are examples of religious structures that took generations to build, and were built at tremendous expense much like the cathedrals of Europe. Obviously, this level of craftsmanship was beyond the reach of the common man. Many trades in Japan were similarly high developed, but their goods were available to only the wealthy in the upper castes.

2. The various "nations" on the isles of Japan were run by despots for many centuries, in societies where the commoner was simply chattel tied to his land. He was not allowed to eat the rice he grew or wear the cloth he wove. He was not even permitted a last name. More often than not, the samurai caste were not nice people by modern standards. Entire villages could be, and in fact were, executed for the insubordination of one individual. Forget the fantasy shown in chambara movies: For millenia Japan was worse than modern-day North Korea. My point is that the vast majority of the residents of the Japanese isles prior to the Tokugawa era were desperately poor, and could not afford nice woodwork of any kind. Therefore, although the technology to work even large timbers by slitting and riving without sawing (few watermills, and fewer sawmills) was available to the wealthy few, including the oftimes militant and powerful religious groups, the demand was low because the cost was high. To top it off, the religious and samurai proscribed what sort of housing commoners could have. Forget beautiful timber frames and joinery, at times, even fired tile roofs were proscribed on pain of death. I kid you not.

3. Prior to the Tokugawa period, and frenetically during the reign of Nobunaga and his successor shogun Toyotomi Hideyoshi (aka "saru") trade with Europe coincided with a loosening of the Shi No Ko Sho caste system, enough, anyway that small cities occupied by people not tied to the land as chattel arose, and traders, financiers, wholesalers and craftsmen made some serious money. Gradually, the middle class grew, and demand for more and better quality housing and woodwork grew with it.

4. During the Tokugawa era, and as result of seeing what the European powers were doing elsewhere in Asia, access to Japan by Western nations was throttled back drastically, but it never ceased entirely. This period was called "heisakoku."

5. The population of Japan increased dramatically during this period, and the demand for lumber by the burgeoning Samurai and middle class, not to mention the wealthy and powerful, grew accordingly far beyond what could be produced using traditional techniques. Remember, traditional lumber-producing techniques did not work well with anything but fairly straight-grain trees, but one did not need to be so selective when rip sawing timbers by hand. Of course, sawed lumber is commonly made using inferior grade trees, and the finished boards and timbers have grain that wanders and readily exhibits tearout. When combined with the increased demand for lumber, shorter construction periods, and the pressure to reduce cost, the single-blade plane was probably found lacking.

6. The historical research I have read on the subject (I have a masters degree in architecture and structural engineering from Tokyo University, but not in history, and I can read and write Japanese at grad school level, and do so everyday) does not pinpoint when the plane was first introduced to Japan, but it is likely it was imported from China. Clearly, it was in use centuries prior to the exciting times of Nobunaga and his imitation of Hank the 8th on the religious orders.

7. The historical research I have read does not pinpoint the exact date the chipbreaker was incorporated, or rather, there are contradictory accounts. But it is clear the chipbreaker plane became popular during the last half of the Meiji Period (1868-1912). They were standard tools used during the construction boom following the Great Kanto Earthquake (and fire) of 1923. The research I have read indicates that the chipbreaker was probably an improvement borrowed from foreign sources, but no one knows for certain. Clearly, some of the people in some of the tribes that constituted the various nations on the islands called Japan, especially those that dealt with foreign traders and shipwrights such as in Dejima and the Nagasaki area, new about chipbreakers prior to the Meiji Period. Maybe they even used chipbreakers. But they were not common. If you have a hard time believing this, I suggest you study the medieval and fragmented nature of Japanese society prior to the Meiji Period, the phenomenon of surrounding the many sekisho (関所 ) since ancient times, and how consequently information and innovation simply did not flow freely. Remember, lots and lots of mountains, only 16% of the land is usable, few roads, few bridges, draconian travel restrictions, and feuding, despotic, thieving lords every few miles. Ninja heaven.

So you tell me, Patrick, when was chipbreaker technology introduced, and if it was known of prior to the Meiji period (before wide distribution of expensive newspapers, and along time before the holy internet, of course), why it was ignored. Simple questions, or maybe not.

I think there is a doctorate thesis waiting for you when you can answer these questions with more certainty than I have explained them. But that would be hard work, and not as much fun as "neutral wording."

Stan

[Patrick Chase]

Stanley, I've read a teeny bit of history as well (though my knowledge of Japan is clearly not as deep as yours) and know much of what you say above. I chose not to spell it out because frankly most of it is orthogonal to the point I was trying to make. My apologies if I seemed to be engaging in the all-too-common sin of "orientalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism)".

I think that everybody (except maybe Warren :-) agrees that stunning results can be achieved without using a cap iron - it's not an enabling technology in the same sense as, say, steam.

As you say there was an awful lot of change going on in that era, and that makes it hard to pinpoint causality. That's fairly typical of *any* culture's history BTW - periods of change are often rapid and poorly documented.

[Stanley Covington]

Stanley, I've read a teeny bit of history as well (though my knowledge of Japan is clearly not as deep as yours) and know much of what you say above. I chose not to spell it out because frankly most of it is orthogonal to the point I was trying to make. My apologies if I seemed to be engaging in the all-too-common sin of "orientalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism)".

I think that everybody (except maybe Warren :-) agrees that stunning results can be achieved without using a cap iron - it's not an enabling technology in the same sense as, say, steam.

As you say there was an awful lot of change going on in that era, and that makes it hard to pinpoint causality. That's fairly typical of *any* culture's history BTW - periods of change are often rapid and poorly documented.

Thank you for your understanding.

Stan

[Patrick Chase]

I like the orderly way your mind works, Patrick, and agree with your conclusions.

However, you neglected, no doubt unintentionally, to include some absolutely critical items in your list: Planing Robe; Embroidered Planing Slippers; Shochu (Oops. Starting to sound like a wild New Years Eve costume party ! :D)

Stan

I somehow missed this and the preceding post about high-angle irons - thanks for the information and the suggestions. I prefer to plane in my "birthday robe", though.

[Stewie Simpson]

The debate on who was 1st to introduce the cap iron has a familiar tone;

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=first+base+abbott+costello