Source for high-angle toothing plane?

[Patrick Chase]

After Stewie's gentle prompting in another thread, I've gone off and read everything I could find on the topic, and realized that my exposure to toothing planes is grossly incomplete, limited as it is to toothed blades for low-angle BU planes. I'm therefore interested in acquiring a high-angle (80+ deg) toothing plane. There seem to be a fair number that look like reasonable candidates on EBay, though I have very little knowledge of the makers and planes in this category.

I don't have a hard-and-fast price limit - if somebody has something new or even custom on offer I would consider it.

Any suggestions or pointers on what to look for on EBay?

Thanks in advance!

[Christopher Charles]

Hello Patrick,

I cast about for a bit in the same manner. I ended up with a LV large scraping plane with a (fine) toothed blade, in part because I got a deal on the scraper plane and had a need for it as well as the desire for a toothed plan. Works great, very easy to adjust both angle and depth. But perhaps overkill here.

Best,
Chris

[Warren Mickley]

Years ago Woodcraft and I think Garret Wade carried the Ulmia toothing plane. With things like this after a while everyone who wants one has one and they get dropped from catalogs. I found the same plane (ECE) on the Dictum site for 70 Euros. 75 degrees, 48 mm wide. In Germany it is called Zahnhobel.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Patrick

Why not just add a 75 degree microbevel to your current BU toothing blade. That will create an 87 degree scraping angle (on your 12 degree bed). How is that different from a vertical blade at 87 degrees?

I suspect the very high angles were only used for toothing veneer, while the current offerings by LN and LV, with their lower cutting angles, are intended for preparing interlocked surfaces.

Regards from Cornwall

Derek

[Mike Brady]

I'll second what Derek said. I use toothing irons in both a low angle jack and a 5-1/2 bench plane. I have never found a need for using my 50 degree frog, but I am planing only hardwood boards, not prepping for veneering. I have no experience with the tooth blade in my scraper, but I would probably go that way if doing more veneering. Both Lie-Nielsen and Veritas have good offerings in toothed blade applications. . By the way, I use toothed irons in applications where I need to reduce thickness or joint boards that are particularly prone to tear-out. I also really like the toothed texture on my bench top, so I level my bench with one of those irons in the plane.

[Patrick Chase]

Hi Patrick

Why not just add a 75 degree microbevel to your current BU toothing blade. That will create an 87 degree scraping angle (on your 12 degree bed). How is that different from a vertical blade at 87 degrees?

Derek

The obvious difference is that the toothing is on the wrong side. True toothing planes are universally bevel-down. I don't know from experience much that matters, though Stewie and a few other sources suggest quite a bit.

[Steve Voigt]

Josh Clark (hyperkitten) has one for sale right now…saw it last night as I was snagging a nice incannel gouge.

[Patrick Chase]

Years ago Woodcraft and I think Garret Wade carried the Ulmia toothing plane. With things like this after a while everyone who wants one has one and they get dropped from catalogs. I found the same plane (ECE) on the Dictum site for 70 Euros. 75 degrees, 48 mm wide. In Germany it is called Zahnhobel.

Thanks!

The current ECE and Ulmia offerings appear slightly different, maybe different versions of the plane over time. The Ulmia is spec'ed as having a 75 deg blade while the ECE is called out at 65-70 deg on different sites. There's also some difference in pictures of the rear grip area below the blade.

EDIT: Dictum and thebestthings call the ECE out as 70 deg, Highland calls it out at 65 (which is lower than I want). Ulmia's site calls theirs out as 75.

[Allan Speers]

Patrick, for that high of an angle, you might consider the LV scraper plane. You can buy an optional toothing blade for it. I have this combo and like it a LOT, especially for pre-treatng knots an such.

I really like the size & heft of the thing. It's wide, stable, and heavy, which is a very good thing for such tasks.

Oddly, I've almost never used it as a scraper plane! :rolleyes: - but the one time I needed it (scraping a huge table) I found the little wheel that lets you bow the blade indespensible.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, for that high of an angle, you might consider the LV scraper plane. You can buy an optional toothing blade for it. I have this combo and like it a LOT, especially for pre-treatng knots an such.

I really like the size & heft of the thing. It's wide, stable, and heavy, which is a very good thing for such tasks.

Oddly, I've almost never used it as a scraper plane! :rolleyes: - but the one time I needed it (scraping a huge table) I found the little wheel that lets you bow the blade indespensible.

I have the LV large scraping plane but not the toothed blade for it. I intentionally didn't bring it up when I created this thread because I wanted to see unbiased opinions. The LV scraper's minimum cutting angle is about 90 degrees, which is on the high end of the range for toothing planes (though I think Stewie's designs are close to 90).

As you note the camber adjustment is a nice productivity aid, compared to filing/stoning a camber onto the blade before turning the hook. I've always wondered why Stanley included that adjustment in the #80 but not the #12 or #112.

[Stewie Simpson]

Of the near dozen toothing planes I have made over time I have kept 3 for my own personal use. Each are fitted with the same type of fine tooth comb.

Front to back; bed angles are 85*65* & 55*.
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/veneer%20plane/_DSC0106_zpszchj4rwa.jpg

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/veneer%20plane/_DSC0105_zps86gy3zbt.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/veneer%20plane/_DSC0105_zps86gy3zbt.jpg.html)

Each have been fitted with a brass sole.
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/veneer%20plane/_DSC0107_zpsiw0npyrb.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/veneer%20plane/_DSC0107_zpsiw0npyrb.jpg.html)

The finely toothed surface after tear out was removed on a scrap piece of Merbau.
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/veneer%20plane/_DSC0109_zpsafzjuthz.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/veneer%20plane/_DSC0109_zpsafzjuthz.jpg.html)


Stewie;

[Jim Belair]

Josh Clark (hyperkitten) has one for sale right now…saw it last night as I was snagging a nice incannel gouge.

I bought mine from Josh.

[Patrick Chase]

Of the near dozen toothing planes I have made over time I have kept 3 for my own personal use. Each are fitted with the same type of fine tooth comb.

Front to back; bed angles are 85*65* & 55*.

[snip]

Each have been fitted with a brass sole.

[snip]

Stewie;

Thank you! Most dedicated toothers that I've been able to find or read about fall within the range of your trio. English designs seem to run high, continental ones a bit lower.

Out of curiosity do you recall the angle on the one that was reviewed on the UK forum? (you posted the link a while back).

[Stewie Simpson]

Patrick. From memory the toothing plane I supplied Jim in the U.K. was 87*.

Stewie;

[Allan Speers]

Stewie, those Nordic-looking planes are sweet !

Who makes the blades?

[Stewie Simpson]

Allan. I purchased around 20 of those NOS fine toothed irons from the U.K a few years ago. The maker no longer exists.

Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

The obvious difference is that the toothing is on the wrong side. True toothing planes are universally bevel-down. I don't know from experience much that matters, though Stewie and a few other sources suggest quite a bit.

Stewie,

What is the specific purpose for which you use your toothing planes?

Regards from Cornwall

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Anthony Hay's wrote a very good article on traditional toothing planes.

Why go to all this trouble? Easy answer. The toothed edge ignores grain direction and figure in any board. It allows for working a surface in any direction, either with the grain, against it or across it. The teeth won’t dig under contrary grain and tear it out, as would the full blade width cut of an ordinary plane. So while the surface is scratched up, it remains intact. And yes, it is slower than a conventional plane, but keeping a untorn surface makes it worth the effort, and these planes can be set to cut rather aggressively, if necessary.
https://anthonyhaycabinetmaker.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/the-toothing-plane-a-tool-of-our-time/
https://anthonyhaycabinetmaker.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/toothing-plane-update/

Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

OK Stewie, so you advocate the toothing plane for interlocked grain rather than surfacing for veneer. In which case I believe one would be better off with the LN or LV toothing blade for a BU plane. I have not used a vertical toothing plane, but I do know the difference between the vectors of a high angle coffin smoother and a low angle BU plane with a high cutting angle. The latter wins out every time. Now if you had said it was about veneer prep, I would have stood back.

Regards from Cornwall

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

I would recommend you avoid this bit of advice on how to sharpen a toothing iron.

Stewie;

http://www.renaissancewoodworker.com/restoring-a-vintage-toothing-plane/
Now it time to flatten the back and off to the grinder to clean up and/or establish a 25 degree bevel. Toothing blades are sharpened exactly like non-toothing irons. Flatten the back, grind a bevel and hone.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Josh Clark (hyperkitten) has one for sale right now…saw it last night as I was snagging a nice incannel gouge.

I would second looking for a woodie and also Josh Clark (that was where I got my toothing plane). Depending upon what hand planes you have, you can also buy an aftermarket toothing blade. I believe LV and LN sell them for their bevel up planes.

[Zach Dillinger]

I don't know about all this vector talk, but my high angle (practically vertical) wooden toothing plane works very well when preparing figured wood (just used on it some extremely curly cherry, as a matter of fact, where it excelled), as well as prep for veneer. They work very well, and I'm sure the bevel up toother works ok too. I would hunt for a wooden toothing plane... good enough for the 18th century, good enough for modern times...

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi Zach. Any chance you can post a photo of your toothing plane.

Stewie;

[Zach Dillinger]

Hi Zach. Any chance you can post a photo of your toothing plane.

Stewie;

Sure, will do tonight.

[Warren Mickley]

Here is a drawing of a toothing plane from Roubo, showing the most common slope of the iron along with the range of possibilities. The wedge is typical of French planes. This is one of the plates that Roubo engraved himself, which lends to its accuracy.
329199

I never saw a toothing plane without a high angle bed until the 21st century. Historic references I have seenput the angle in the 80-90 degree range, and talk about scraping and light cuts.

Ed Wright, who wrote the article for the Anthony Hay shop (referenced above) will be a presenter at the annual Williamsburg Woodworking in the 18th century conference. The conference starts January 17 and there are probably seats left. The cost is $330. I have examined Ed's toothing and upright planes and the surfaces they produce at this conference in previous years.

[Patrick Chase]

OK Stewie, so you advocate the toothing plane for interlocked grain rather than surfacing for veneer. In which case I believe one would be better off with the LN or LV toothing blade for a BU plane. I have not used a vertical toothing plane, but I do know the difference between the vectors of a high angle coffin smoother and a low angle BU plane with a high cutting angle. The latter wins out every time. Now if you had said it was about veneer prep, I would have stood back.

Regards from Cornwall

Derek

I have to admit that while I started out enthusiastic about bevel-up planes, I've come to have a more "balanced" view over the past couple years.

Bevel-up planes have been around for a long time, and yet it is only recently that we've come to convince ourselves that they're the answer to every planing problem. Tearout? just plop a high-angle blade in your 62! Still have tearout? Just plop a toothing blade in your 62!

Professional woodworkers way back when had less real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income available for tools than we do today, and despite that economic incentive they didn't use the 62 or its predecessors as one-tool-fits-all uber-planes - they bought bevel-down bench planes, high-angle bevel-down toothing planes, etc.

This is all a long-winded way of saying: I'm going to bet that the old-timers knew more than we do (as was unquestionably the case with cap irons...) and stick with a traditional toother in this instance.

EDIT: For the record I have a 2-1/4" toothed blade for my LV BUS and LAJ. As I said in a previous thread, I think it works OK for bulk removal in difficult wood, not so impressed for refinement.

[Allan Speers]

I don't know about all this vector talk, but my high angle (practically vertical) wooden toothing plane works very well when preparing figured wood (just used on it some extremely curly cherry, as a matter of fact, where it excelled), as well as prep for veneer. They work very well, and I'm sure the bevel up toother works ok too. I would hunt for a wooden toothing plane... good enough for the 18th century, good enough for modern times...


Same here, as I wrote earlier. I use my 90 degree LV for prepping knots, really tough grain (hard figured maple, burls...) etc.

From what I've read, these tasks are typically done with a lower angled toothed blade, but the LV scraper plane / toothed blade is all I have, and it works just fine. Of course, I usually finish with a higher angle straight blade, such as one of my Knight smoothers or a Gordon. I PRE-condition the problem areas with the toothed blade, hitting it from all directions, so it gets sort of chewed up. Then the straight blade cuts the final surface easliy. (most of the time. :( )

[Zach Dillinger]

Hi Zach. Any chance you can post a photo of your toothing plane.

Stewie;

By Stewie's request... please pardon the lame photography (quickly shot with a cell phone camera in a dimly lit shop...). As you can see, it is a Butcher iron (which is nearing the end of its life, sadly). The plane works very, very well with the grain, across the grain, against the grain, whatever you need, as long as it is sharp.

329237329238329239329240

[Rob Paul]

Here's a couple of toothing planes, that I've found locally;
front; American (Scioto Works) at 85 deg
back; English (Greenslade) at 82 deg
(both date to late-ish 1800s )
329241

[Patrick Chase]

Same here, as I wrote earlier. I use my 90 degree LV for prepping knots, really tough grain (hard figured maple, burls...) etc.

From what I've read, these tasks are typically done with a lower angled toothed blade, but the LV scraper plane / toothed blade is all I have, and it works just fine. Of course, I usually finish with a higher angle straight blade, such as one of my Knight smoothers or a Gordon. I PRE-condition the problem areas with the toothed blade, hitting it from all directions, so it gets sort of chewed up. Then the straight blade cuts the final surface easliy. (most of the time. :( )

Given that I have that scraper plane there's no reason not to at least give it a try. I ordered the same blade you have.

I've bid on a BD toothing plane in the 70-deg range as well, so between those I should be able to get at least a rough feel for the benefits and what's possible.

[Stewie Simpson]

Zach & Rob. Appreciate you posting photo's of your toothing planes.

Zach what width is your toothing iron.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www.gunpowderwoodworks.com/blog/2013/2/10/toothed-plane-blade-demonstration
Incidentally, you will only find the toothed blade available for bevel up planes. Here's why: the "teeth" are created on the blade by milling channels into the back side of the blade. If you were to mount that blade in a conventional bevel-down plane the channels would be facing up. The "shavings" from a toothed blade are very fine and granular and they would all get jammed into the channels under the chip-breaker and quickly clog the plane. On a bevel-down plane there is no chipbreaker and the milled grooves are on the bottom of the blade making for a nice smooth operation.

[Derek Cohen]

I have to admit that while I started out enthusiastic about bevel-up planes, I've come to have a more "balanced" view over the past couple years.

Bevel-up planes have been around for a long time, and yet it is only recently that we've come to convince ourselves that they're the answer to every planing problem. Tearout? just plop a high-angle blade in your 62! Still have tearout? Just plop a toothing blade in your 62!

Professional woodworkers way back when had less real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income available for tools than we do today, and despite that economic incentive they didn't use the 62 or its predecessors as one-tool-fits-all uber-planes - they bought bevel-down bench planes, high-angle bevel-down toothing planes, etc.

This is all a long-winded way of saying: I'm going to bet that the old-timers knew more than we do (as was unquestionably the case with cap irons...) and stick with a traditional toother in this instance.

EDIT: For the record I have a 2-1/4" toothed blade for my LV BUS and LAJ. As I said in a previous thread, I think it works OK for bulk removal in difficult wood, not so impressed for refinement.

Hi Patrick

I do not have a problem with coffin shaped scraper type toothed planes. My understanding, however, is that they were principally designed to roughen the surface in preperation for glueing veneer .. and not for surface removal of interlocked grain, per se (that is, as an optional alternative to a scrub plane).

When it comes down to surface removal, and especially when one wants to take deeper shavings, then ergonomics must come into the equation. A short and high-sided coffin smoother will have a high centre of effort. It will be significantly more effort to push (in this situation) than a LA Jack (with a toothed blade). Since the purpose described here is rapid wasting of wood, I am prepared to bet my farm that the BU plane will be a preferred choice in a side-by-side comparison.

On the train to London

Derek

[Zach Dillinger]

Zach what width is your toothing iron.

Stewie;

I believe it is 2" but I would have to measure.

Wooden toothing planes were used on many different surfaces. The assertion that they were designed only to prepare veneer is just wrong as proved by the tool marks left on surfaces that were never veneered (and the experience of those, myself included, who have used them to clean up / flatten stock). The Hay Shop Blog linked earlier even shows evidence of toothing plane use to plane down drawer dovetails / fit the drawer to the case (likely when the drawer side grain would force you to plane towards the drawer face, an obviously hazardous situation). The coffin-plane style toothing plane is a wonderfully versatile tool, as I am sure the BU style is if you prefer that style / maker.

[george wilson]

There is(or was) a nice Marples wooden toothing plane on Patrick Leach's January tool list. Suggest you google it. It was in new condition if I recall correctly. I have a 19th. C. one I bought for about $80.00 some years ago.

Ed Wright,who writes the "Anthony Hay's" newsletter,linked to by Stewie,is the last of my old apprentices still there,now in his 50's. I hired him many years ago just out of college. You should read his articles as they are quite informative.

I don't have a BU plane except for a LN miter plane. But,I believe that some of the LV BU planes do have a toothed blade available(possibly LN,too). They are used BU in the low angle planes they are intended to fit.

In the old days though,toothing planes had nearly vertical blades as seen in Stewie's and Zach Dillinger's pictures(post #28 for Zach,I think). They scraped,rather than cut. This prevented any tearout,no matter how figured the wood was. They used toothed surfaces beneath veneered surfaces as well as surfaces in general where it was unseen,and wood might be glued to it. Years ago,the Department of Agriculture did a test and they found that SMOOTH wooden surfaces actually gave better adhesion than toothed surfaces. I'll still take the toothed surface myself!! Especially on the surfaces of OILY woods,such as rosewoods.:)

The blades for these old toothing planes were chisel cut just like the teeth of files were cut. File cutters might have been furnished with annealed plane irons so they could cut the teeth and return them to the plane iron maker. I don't know if enough toothed blades were made for the iron makers to have an in house blade toother. Skills were carefully and legally divided into specialty shops in the old days. I believe it took about 19 different shops to make parts for a single flintlock pistol,for instance. There was a craftsman who only made rough forged breech plugs.There was even a "Screwer together" who assembled locks from parts supplied to him. He may also have been licensed to make and thread the screws used in the locks. Things were tightly controlled back then,in the old Guild system. London based workers had to be the very best in order to be allowed to have a shop there. Birmingham had a lot of less skillful workers(though certainly not all of them were less skilled). The town was derisively called "Brumigan" by more elite craftsmen. But,I have 2 BSA(Birmingham Small Arms) air rifles made in 1907 which are still in perfect order,and are the equal of any other old air rifles I have ever seen.

Ed mentioned that early planes had their handles offset on the old days,but they didn't know why at the tie he wrote that article. When I looked at tools recovered from Henry VIII's ship,the Mary Rose,the planes had handles inlet flush with the edge of the plane by means of a single,wide dovetail. That was in the 1500's. English tools were pretty crude at that point. But,the old timers who pushed those planes all day long every day they lived knew the consequences of grasping a handle all the time: Carpal Tunnel. So,they made their handles too short to be grasped with all the fingers. The web of the thumb was used to push the blade,while the finger next to the thumb wrapped around the handle. The other 3 fingers rested against the side of the plane. This configuration prevented the onset of carpal tunnel,which they had no way of curing at that time.

I have had carpal tunnel in both hands,and have had surgery 2 times on 1 hand,and need it done again on the other,because the surgeon was careless,and failed to snip all the way through the ligaments the first time. I wouldn't employ him a second time as he was too arrogant to admit that he screwed up. He retired any way. If you might be concerned that you have carpal tunnel,bend your thumb curled up tightly across your palm. As long as the big muscle of the thumb is bulging and tight,you are o.k.. I was told that by a surgeon who specialized in that work. Also,the surgeon was able to stick pins into my palm without me feeling it before I had surgery.

By the 18th. C.,handles were not right on the edge of the plane,but were moved off center,and were still too short for all the fingers to be used. Gradually,this old knowledge became lost,and handles became centered on the plane body. Probably the onset of planing machines contributed to the loss of many important bits of knowledge,including the proper use of the chip breaker.

Below are pictures of a mid 18th. C. style jack plane. One of the jack planes we made for the museum craftsmen to use. Note the offset handle,and the short handle that went to that plane. The blade of that plane barely cleared the handle,preventing even more,the use of all fingers to grasp the handle.
If you want to make an authentic plane of 18th. C. style,use this as a pattern. It was made from measurements of an original.

[Zach Dillinger]

That was in the 1500's. English tools were pretty crude at that point. But,the old timers who pushed those planes all day long every day they lived knew the consequences of grasping a handle all the time: Carpal Tunnel. So,they made their handles too short to be grasped with all the fingers. The web of the thumb was used to push the blade,while the finger next to the thumb wrapped around the handle. The other 3 fingers rested against the side of the plane. This configuration prevented the onset of carpal tunnel,which they had no way of curing at that time.



Dutch planes were this way too, well into the 18th century. The old timers knew a heck of a lot about the ergonomics of hand work, even if they didn't call it that. Here is a picture of an 18th c. Dutch plane and my version of it that I use a lot. Stubby little tote, three inches tall if I remember correctly, just the right height to ride in the pad between thumb and fore finger.

329258329259

[Pat Barry]

...But,the old timers who pushed those planes all day long every day they lived knew the consequences of grasping a handle all the time: Carpal Tunnel. So,they made their handles too short to be grasped with all the fingers. The web of the thumb was used to push the blade,while the finger next to the thumb wrapped around the handle. The other 3 fingers rested against the side of the plane. This configuration prevented the onset of carpal tunnel,which they had no way of curing at that time.
This has been discussed here before I know, but referring to the old timers, their hands were simply smaller than hands of today. Over time people have gotten larger (on average). Not to say there weren't always large people of course, but the generality is that they were smaller and this is clearly proven by history. I also don't think there is science to prove that the old timers knew about carpal tunnel syndrome as that is pretty recent discovery in the annals of science / medicine. Safe to say that people now, using older tools, need to adapt their own hand grips to the older tools commonly used by smaller people.

[Patrick Chase]

Hi Patrick

I do not have a problem with coffin shaped scraper type toothed planes. My understanding, however, is that they were principally designed to roughen the surface in preperation for glueing veneer .. and not for surface removal of interlocked grain, per se (that is, as an optional alternative to a scrub plane).

When it comes down to surface removal, and especially when one wants to take deeper shavings, then ergonomics must come into the equation. A short and high-sided coffin smoother will have a high centre of effort. It will be significantly more effort to push (in this situation) than a LA Jack (with a toothed blade). Since the purpose described here is rapid wasting of wood, I am prepared to bet my farm that the BU plane will be a preferred choice in a side-by-side comparison.

On the train to London

Derek

Understood, though I'm discovering a lot of sources that describe use of a high angle toothing plane as a first-pass smoother, often followed by a scraper. That was the point that Stewie made in another thread and that set me to digging.

I think that with respect to ergonomics and planing forces it's important to distinguish perceived forces from actual ones. Simple Newtonian mechanics tell us that for a given amount of cutting force, the force required to push the plane will always be equal (popularly stated as "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"), regardless of the plane's tote configuration. It is simply impossible that a high plane would objectively take more effort to push through the cut. You may perceive that it does, but that simply means that you're mis-attributing what you feel.

What *is* different is the distribution (but not the amount) of downforce required to hold the plane in the cut. When you push the plane from a higher hand position that shifts the downforce towards the toe of the plane, so to compensate you may need to apply more downforce at the tote and less at the toe. The magnitude of the required shift is actually surprisingly small for the range of heights we're discussing here, but it's real and may contribute to the [mis-]perception that higher overall force is required. This may also explain why you don't see upright totes on many wooden planes.

Finally, wooden plane makers had a remedy for high tote position - the razee configuration. The fact that they didn't employ it very often should tell you just how much of a problem it really wasn't. Other have made good points about why that may be the case.

[Zach Dillinger]

The difference in plane tote design cannot be dismissed as a simple function of the old myth that "people were much shorter back then" simply because they weren't. According to Colonial Williamsburg, the difference in average height between 1770 and 1950 was less than 2/3rds of an inch.

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter08/stuff.cfm

Another source, this a study by an economics professor at Ohio State, says that the average height for a male in the 17th and 18th centuries was less than 2.5 inches shorter than today's average of 5'9". http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm Even the minimal difference in hand size (assuming there is a definite correlation between hand size and height... which is a stretch) caused by a minor difference in in average height would not account for the rather large change in tote design.

Old timers had to have known all about carpal tunnel; they just didn't call it that and probably didn't know the biomechanical causes of it. They just knew if you push a plane with the pad of your hand, you don't get the pain. Prep stock for 8 or 10 hours in a row, day after day, with a modern plane, then do the same with a properly designed period plane and report findings. I've done both and greatly prefer the shorter period tote. I even push modern planes around with the pad of my hand. It is much more comfortable.

As said above, the old timers knew all about the ergonomics of hand work, they just didn't call it that.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of toothing planes.

[george wilson]

Patrick,you make a number of assumptions that are not accurate. First,original records from the 18th. C. kept by the military in Williamsburg show that people were much the same size as they are today. A lot of research has proven this,though many people think men were smaller back then. 2 or 300 years is a drop in the bucket compared to time spans involved in evolution. George Washington was over 6' tall,and so strong he could bend a horse shoe with his bare hands.

I spent 40 years in the museum,and every year we all had to attend lectures on every facet of 18th. C. life. I ought to have a doctorate after all that!!:) Think about 40 years of schooling. Every year 3 or 4 classes in everything from textiles to wagons and carriages!

As for old timers knowing about carpal tunnel syndrome,they weren't stupid,and certainly knew about the effects of labor on the body,and the effects of repeated,prolonged tasks,even if they didn't use the modern name for those conditions. Consumption,most know,was their name for tuberculosis,for example.

They worked at very specific tasks as I mentioned in my last post,and did those repeated tasks for many more hours a day than we have to,every day except Sundays. They knew what their aches and pains were caused by. You'd have to be really stupid to not to know that your hands got thus and so if you did thus and so work with them day after day. Wood carvers got "Carver's palm" from bumping carving tools along with the palm. This was a horse shoe shaped growth of thick,hard tissue in the palm. It got so bad that the hand eventually could not hardly open. This was surgically removed(very painfully!) by cutting the mass off with sharp knives.

They had all kinds of conditions that we don't get so much these days. I had a very difficult childhood in Alaska,which was a life of pioneering conditions for our family for several years. I had to carry lumber uphill all Summer for some years ., Enough to build a house. I have a curved spine from that. I also hauled 3/4" steel cable for a stump puller a few Summers,drilled 3 foot deep holes into ten foot diameter stumps with a cross handle auger to set dynamite to blow the huge Alaska cedar stumps into sections so we could at least pull the sections one at a time. This after chopping the huge roots off below he surface.

Carrying oil was an every day task. 30 gallons a day. At my age this was heavy work. So,my skeleton in general has many problems with worn out joints,back trouble,etc.. I have been putting off knee and thumb replacement for some years.The thumb is from finger style guitar playing since 1952. Just goes to show you. This is how people lived many years ago. We didn't have electricity for 3 years.

My step father was gone on the buoy tender a lot of the time,so I had to take on these heavy tasks when too young to really be up to it.

Anyway,original military records from the period listed ages,height,weight,etc. for those in the militia,and cannot be argued with.

So,why is so much armor in museums small? Because the normal size stuff was used up. When I went to the Federal Surplus Center in Richmond,where,as a museum,we were allowed to shop,I saw a large bin full of flat brimmed hats like drill sergeants use. Every one of them were brand new,and all were very small. Surplus clothing was in small sizes only. The regular size clothing was used up and discarded.

So,left over artifacts might not be giving you the correct story.

Oh,I forgot: Oddball tools have survived in unused condition too. I have seem more incorrectly made tools in the museum's large collections than I can remember. They were usually someone's BAD idea that didn't work out. I hope that some day educated but NON CRAFTSMAN writers will not start posting pictures of tools that never worked represented as standard in future books. We have a very carefully made screw cutting wooden lathe in the museum. Someone put a huge amount of effort into it. It will not cut a thread because of gross errors in the maker's work. He apparently had seen French moving spindle lathes somewhere,and obtained a no doubt very expensive spindle for one. From his memory,he tried making himself a similar lathe. It simply does not work. Yet,the lathe was too valuable to throw out,and has survived in remarkable condition! It proudly sits in the Wallace Gallery. I was asked to make a threaded piece of boxwood to put on it,and a threading tool,which I did. But,that was a piece of fantasy.

We also have a very large collection of original 18th. C. clothing that shows that sizes have not changed.

[george wilson]

Patrick,razee lanes were made for boys in manual training,not full grown men. By the way,I have seen plenty of short,but powerfully built men who have hands larger than mine,and I was 6' 5"(now 6' 3" due to disc degeneration in my back),with large,ring size 14 hands. Marcus Hansen(one of my journeymen),had a father,an off the boat Norwegian,who had huge hands,though he was a LOT shorter than most men.

Go to Patrick Leach's tool selling site. When he has a razee,he mentions it was for manual training by boys. He is a well known tool expert,and I was the Master Toolmaker in Williamsburg,since you are new here. But,I have known about razees even before I came to the museum in 1970,to be Master Musical Instrument Maker. I had 2 careers,sort of. In 1986 the director finally begged me into making tools for the historic Area since all kinds of incorrect tools were in use.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick,you make a number of assumptions that are not accurate. First,original records from the 18th. C. kept by the military in Williamsburg show that people were much the same size as they are today. A lot of research has proven this,though many people think men were smaller back then. 2 or 300 years is a drop in the bucket compared to time spans involved in evolution. George Washington was over 6' tall,and so strong he could bend a horse shoe with his bare hands.

Pat (Barry) is the one who posted the argument about hand size and height, not me (Patrick).

I recognized that line of argument as a likely quagmire and studiously ignored it :-).

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick,razee lanes were made for boys in manual training,not full grown men. By the way,I have seen plenty of short,but powerfully built men who have hands larger than mine,and I was 6' 5"(now 6' 3" due to disc degeneration in my back),with large,ring size 14 hands. Marcus Hansen(one of my journeymen),had a father,an off the boat Norwegian,who had huge hands,though he was a LOT shorter than most men.

Go to Patric Leach's tool selling site. When he has a razee,he mentions it was for manual training by boys.

Yes, that was more or less my point. If tote/grip height had been an issue as Derek claimed then razees would have been much more widely used. As you say, they were not.

[george wilson]

You have an unclear way of making a point!:) If you knew that razees were made for boy's manual training,you might have simply said so,no?

Sorry,my error about PAT vs. Patrick. I read too fast as I'm trying to do 3 things at once.

As far as using a scraper after a toothing plane,it is necessary because a toothing plane leaves a lot of fuzz that you don't want to veneer over,or to leave in general.

[Derek Cohen]

Patrick, I think that you are confusing matters. I have not said anything about razees. I simply stated which type of scraper plane was more ergonomic, a high sided coffin smoother with a vertical blade vs a low angle BU jack (with the same cutting angle) which is pushed from low down.

However, if you want to get into razees as a design, my commentary has been about handle design and how they are pushed. What I have written about on my website are my observations that support the benefits of pushing low (and that a razee design aids in this area). The handle that George posted earlier is very much in line with the one I use on my razee jack. My handle is taller, but it has a similar angle, and is also pushed with the palm from low down. In other words, all this is about keeping the centre of effort low when the cutting angle is high.

Regards from London

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, I think that you are confusing matters. I have not said anything about razees. I simply stated which type of scraper plane was more ergonomic, a high sided coffin smoother with a vertical blade vs a low angle BU jack (with the same cutting angle) which is pushed from low down.

My point was that if height-of-effort really mattered, then those planes would have been made as razees instead of coffins. It doesn't, and they weren't.

I've long since learned to very skeptical any new "innovation" that was actually both widely known and feasible all along. Low center-of-effort is one of those - everybody has known for centuries (literally) how to implement that. The fact that they didn't consider it worth the bother says something very important (and as I said, engineering analysis agrees - there is no significant difference in pushing effort).

[Derek Cohen]

Patrick, I shall leave you to go your own way on this. Issues of ergonomics have been discussed here at length - long before you began posting on this forum.

Regards from London

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

You have an unclear way of making a point!:) If you knew that razees were made for boy's manual training,you might have simply said so,no?

Sorry,my error about PAT vs. Patrick. I read too fast as I'm trying to do 3 things at once.

As far as using a scraper after a toothing plane,it is necessary because a toothing plane leaves a lot of fuzz that you don't want to veneer over,or to leave in general.

To be clear, I didn't know they were for training. I just knew that:

1. Everybody knew that the razee configuration could be used to lower center-of-effort

2. Nobody bothered for the most part. I didn't realize that the exception was for training, I just knew (based on the used tool market) that it wasn't all that common.

3. Taking (1) and (2) together it is clear that they didn't view height-of-effort as a serious ergonomic issue.

Sorry about the lack of clarity.

[george wilson]

Derek: My 18th. C. jack plane handle IS NOT pushed with the palm. It was designed to be pushed with the WEB of the hand. Or,am I missing something in your statement,Derek? You said your handle is ALSO pushed with the palm,and that is not correct for my handle.

That was my whole point about early plane handles that helped prevent carpal tunnel.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi George

My error. The handle you posted looks so similar to a couple I like (however yours is shorter, and I can see that it is used differently). I tend to push with the heel of my hand low on the handle. I found pushing with the web of my hand (stretched apart) on the body of a woody (both coffin and Krenov) stressed my hand. Keeping the heel low on an upright handle I find is the best execution I have found. Others may prefer something else.

Regards from London

Derek

[Pat Barry]

It is clear that there is data available regarding height that shows a clear message that heights are increasing over the past 100-200 years.
329278

The following chart shows the significance of the relatively recent height increase.
329279

Similarly data pertaining to soldiers shows height increasing over time.
329280
"By comparing the heights of soldiers in the US army with countries that enforced conscription we can see the bias more clearly. In countries that had conscription, the average height of conscripts was increasing over the period, meanwhile in the US where entry was voluntary, the heights of soldiers was falling"

I find George's points regarding the idea that the regular size clothing, for example, being used up and the small sizes being what is available, but my great grandfathers civil war uniform is comically small (maybe it shrunk over the past 150 years), so small that I couldn't fit into it when I was 12 and he was a fully grown young adult at the time he wore it in the Civil War.

Go back to historic settlements and look at the chairs and beds - they are smaller than todays by a significant amount. Why? Some other reason than they were smaller?

Go back to ancient buildings - doorways are much lower as are hallways - why? Why would they make them so small that they bump there heads entering rooms?

Wiliamsburg data is not the only data out there. In fact it may be biased (I don't know) but at least another source thinks so.

My data source for the above is http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-agriculture/human-height/

Akso interesting is this website pertaining to the Dutch http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randal-olson/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall_b_5544085.html

As noted by someone with a similar name, this is an argument we'll never settle here. Peace. I will have no further input on this

[Stewie Simpson]

Razee planes

October 9, 2013October 9, 2013 (https://workingbyhand.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/razee-planes/)
What exactly is a razee plane? The name is derived from the nautical term razee, a sailing ship that has been cut down to reduce the number of decks. The name is derived from the French vaisseau rasé, meaning a razed. In a similar context, the rear part of the wooden plane is lowered in a cut-away style, lowering the totes position on the plane. Lowering the tote allows for better balance, and more precise control by lowering the centre of gravity. It also aligns the force being applied right behind the blade. The planes are generally made of a hard wood such as Lignum Vitae, which is resistant to wear, but heavy. Razee planes are quiet unique in the genre of planes, often used by shipwrights. One form of the plane, the “technical jack plane”, is touted to have been used in school workshops, making for a lighter tool and easier to use for the beginner. In one book, “Woodworking A Book of Tools, Materials, and Processes for the Handyman”, (1906, Paul Hasluck) identifies a razee as a “sunk handle jack plane with closed toat“. The plane is shown below.https://workingbyhand.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/razee-planes/

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, I shall leave you to go your own way on this. Issues of ergonomics have been discussed here at length - long before you began posting on this forum.

Regards from London

Derek

I shouldn't, but I can't resist...

Is that sort of like how the "forum consensus" held that cap irons were really just for stiffening the blade until a few short years back?

I've also long since learned to ignore Internet groupthink. You can learn quite a lot about mob psychology, but that's about it. To be quite honest there were about 5 people whose opinions I was hoping to elicit with this thread. For the post part they've replied, and for that I am hugely thankful.

[Mel Fulks]

I think the two height sources cited in Zachs post are in obvious conflict. George posted while back about height records for revolutionary war soldiers and they showed they were tall. Those are probably accurate numbers but they are for a job that seems to need and does tend to draw big guys. Tables used by physicians to show average height and weight of children around 1900 are significantly different from tables used today. Compare that difference of one hundred years,it can be done with real medical records. Saying people are now a "lot taller"...might be stretching it.

[Stewie Simpson]

Anyone that has used a highly bedded toothing plane will know that you can not compare its required forces to that of a similar bedded plane fitted with a standard iron. The shaving actions are totally different.

Stewie;

[Zach Dillinger]

Saying people are now a "lot taller"...might be stretching it.

And that is the only point I was trying to make. An overall difference of a couple of inches is not going to make enough difference in hand size (after all, there are men shorter than me with bigger hands, and vice versa) to completely invalidate the theory of the proper way to push a plane, namely with the area between the thumb and forefinger. This does two things; it puts the arm bones directly behind the tote and allows you to use a very loose grip, both excellent ways to avoid carpal tunnel. The pointer finger, in this picture, is just resting forward, but it can also be wrapped around the tote which assists in the return stroke.

Here is an admittedly bad picture I just took of the proper way to push a plane like this.

329282

[Patrick Chase]

And that is the only point I was trying to make. An overall difference of a couple of inches is not going to make enough difference in hand size (after all, there are men shorter than me with bigger hands, and vice versa) to completely invalidate the theory of the proper way to push a plane, namely with the area between the thumb and forefinger. This does two things; it puts the arm bones directly behind the tote and allows you to use a very loose grip, both excellent ways to avoid carpal tunnel. The pointer finger, in this picture, is just resting forward, but it can also be wrapped around the tote which assists in the return stroke.

Here is an admittedly bad picture I just took of the proper way to push a plane like this.

329282

I've been intentionally avoiding this one, but I think Zach hit the nail on the head here.

Let's assume just for kicks that people are a full 6" (~15 cm) taller now than in the 18th or 19th century. Note that this is a much greater increase than anybody in this thread has claimed. 6" is about 9% of the height of an average human male.

If all limbs scale proportionally, then that would correspond to a ~1/4" change in palm width. That is nowhere near sufficient to account for the difference in tote sizes shown earlier in this thread.

In other words, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument whether woodworkers have become taller, so there's no reason to continue to argue about it (though this being the Internet I'm sure we will)

[george wilson]

The only part of the British Army that sought large men were the grenadiers. This was because 18th. C. grenades were more like round cannon balls with a hollow interior for black powder. They were considerably heavier than modern grenades,which have much thinner walls,and are grooved to break into fragments(except for certain specialized grenades.

In a small town like Williamsburg,they recruited whoever they could get.

According to the logic some are using,cave men would have been sub dwarves. Not even Hobbits! Maybe like dolls? Actually,some prehistoric men were pretty large. They left skeletons to measure. Now,when you go back to 3 million years,they are pretty small!:)

The existing clothing we have,which is quite a large selection,and the 18th. C. militia information still show,in spite of graphs,that there is not much difference in height over only 200 years. How fast do you think evolution works?

[Patrick Chase]

The existing clothing we have,which is quite a large selection,and the 18th. C. militia information still show,in spite of graphs,that there is not much difference in height over only 200 years. How fast do you think evolution works?

I agree with you about how quickly heights have changed, but have to note that while evolution proceeds slowly on average, it can also move very quickly indeed with the right forcing function. for example these papers (http://cnas.ucr.edu/guppy/publications.html) recently got a lot of press, but IIRC there are plenty of other examples.

[Stewie Simpson]

Anyone want to get back on track with the OPs discussion on toothing planes. If not; I got better things to do with my time.

Stewie;

[Mel Fulks]

The height thing is tangential here and I know that Zach and others know a lot about planes and there use. I only comment because I've always been interested the height question and believe it is not covered enough. Other things involved besides evolution. Rickets in children can reduce ultimate adult height. Pretty much gone now but was still a big deal when I was a child. Indeed I had rickets, and we were not especially poor,what we didn't have was TV and calcium pill commercials. Just as animal stock is improved by bringing in new blood so it is with people. Just a few generations back marrying first cousins was quite common,cars changed that.

[Allan Speers]

Anyone that has used a highly bedded toothing plane will know that you can not compare its required forces to that of a similar bedded plane fitted with a standard iron. The shaving actions are totally different.

Stewie;


VERY true.

[Allan Speers]

Hi Patrick

I do not have a problem with coffin shaped scraper type toothed planes. My understanding, however, is that they were principally designed to roughen the surface in preperation for glueing veneer .. and not for surface removal of interlocked grain, per se (that is, as an optional alternative to a scrub plane).

When it comes down to surface removal, and especially when one wants to take deeper shavings, then ergonomics must come into the equation. A short and high-sided coffin smoother will have a high centre of effort. It will be significantly more effort to push (in this situation) than a LA Jack (with a toothed blade). Since the purpose described here is rapid wasting of wood, I am prepared to bet my farm that the BU plane will be a preferred choice in a side-by-side comparison.

Derek

I agree, Derek, but only from very limited experience:

I do have a coffin-style toothing plane. I never measured it, but it's probably around 80 degrees. I fettled it well, and tried it once, and now it sits on my shelf looking pretty. The LV scraper plane/ toothed blade combo, even though 90 degrees, is just SO much easier to use. I don't know if it's due to lower center of gravity, a wider base, or the fact there are knobs for both hands, but the difference is huge.

Perhaps it would be useful for prepping for veneer, though, where you don't need as much force & where the light weight might be beneficial. I've done so little veneering that I can't say.

[bridger berdel]

http://www.gunpowderwoodworks.com/blog/2013/2/10/toothed-plane-blade-demonstration
Incidentally, you will only find the toothed blade available for bevel up planes. Here's why: the "teeth" are created on the blade by milling channels into the back side of the blade. If you were to mount that blade in a conventional bevel-down plane the channels would be facing up. The "shavings" from a toothed blade are very fine and granular and they would all get jammed into the channels under the chip-breaker and quickly clog the plane. On a bevel-down plane there is no chipbreaker and the milled grooves are on the bottom of the blade making for a nice smooth operation.




I beg to differ. I made a 45°, bevel down with chipbreaker toothed plane. It works just fine, no shavings jam under the chipbreaker.

[Christopher Charles]

Getting a bit off topic, but I've posed this question before: when using hide glue, why roughen the surface when veneering if hide glue gives a stronger bond than the wood itself (when used correctly)? Based on my limited experience with hammer veneering and more experience using a toothed workbench surface, my speculation is that the roughing is to help prevent the veneer from slipping around during hammering. Thoughts?

C

[Trevor Goodwin]

Increase surface area in contact with glue? Like cooling fins on a heatsink.

[Patrick Chase]

Getting a bit off topic, but I've posed this question before: when using hide glue, why roughen the surface when veneering if hide glue gives a stronger bond than the wood itself (when used correctly)? Based on my limited experience with hammer veneering and more experience using a toothed workbench surface, my speculation is that the roughing is to help prevent the veneer from slipping around during hammering. Thoughts?

C

George (I think) already addressed this. Oily woods are a case where the generalization about the glue being stronger than the wood doesn't apply.

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/gluing-oily-tropical-hardwoods/

[george wilson]

Toothing doesn't increase the surface area. To do that,the adjacent surface would have to exactly conform to the other one. It does give the glue a better mechanical grip. Very useful on oily woods.

Patrick C..We'd love to see some of your work. Don't be shy about posting pictures.

Did anyone look at Patrick Leach
s January tool list,where there's a minty Marples toothing plane for sale? That was the answer to the OP's question.

[Trevor Goodwin]

It does increase increase surface area for the glue to stick to. You have the original coplanar area + the walls of the trenches.

[Derek Cohen]

It does increase increase surface area for the glue to stick to. You have the original coplanar area + the walls of the trenches.

Trevor, it may increase the glue area, but what is more important is the wood-to-wood area. That is not increased. - unlike, for example, finger joints.

Regards from London

Derek

[george wilson]

Exactly,Derek. The wood to wood is all that matters. In oily woods,though,the glue getting a better mechanical grip helps.

I might add,the ability to properly analyze situations is a major key to getting somewhere.

[Stewie Simpson]

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/veneer%20plane/_DSC0110_zpsuewif730.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/veneer%20plane/_DSC0110_zpsuewif730.jpg.html)

The original bevel angle on the toothing planes I have been using is 15*. Of the other irons I have in stock, a large no. are NOS single and double iron combinations I purchased from the U.K a few years ago. It would make a nice change to move away from making backsaws and get back into some traditional plane making work.

Stewie;

[Trevor Goodwin]

I might add,the ability to properly analyze situations is a major key to getting somewhere.

No, don't add. No one cares for your snide comments here. They add nothing to the discussion and make this forum look bad, so please just keep them to yourself.

[Derek Cohen]

Trevor, with respect, George does not make snide remarks. When he writes something, and especially when it differs from my procedure, I stop and think deeply about it. He is by far the most experienced and knowledgeable craftsman on this forum. His body of work places him in the exhalted area ... and I do not put people on pedestals easily.

I believe what George is saying - which is likely a projection of my own belief - is that we all need to think through/test or evaluate the information that we read on the forums. There are so many here just repeating what they read as though it was gospel. This is why I like to see the work of those pouring advice or recommendations here ... especially when they contradict me .. because I am always right! :)

Regards from London

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Flatulence may be perfectly natural and something that everyone gets, but if you have more than your share, it's a major annoyance.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Trevor, with respect, George does not make snide remarks. When he writes something, and especially when it differs from my procedure, I stop and think deeply about it. He is by far the most experienced and knowledgeable craftsman on this forum. His body of work places him in the exhalted area ... and I do not put people on pedestals easily.


I agree. George Wilson is not some peddler flogging the "stone of the week" or reciting nonsense because he read it in a sales brochure. He is an asset to this forum and his comments are worthy of significant consideration by anybody interested in using hand tools. He may not have all of the patience of a saint, but that is a minor vice in my view.

[Pat Barry]

I might add,the ability to properly analyze situations is a major key to getting somewhere.
This is true. The problem for those inexperienced is that they don't know all of the interactions so well and therefore have to struggle with the 'proper' analysis. Experience cannot be taught or in other words "We can teach from our experience, but we cannot teach experience". I do appreciate the experience angle that George and others bring and even so, I still often need to learn the hard way.

[george wilson]

This is true. The problem for those inexperienced is that they don't know all of the interactions so well and therefore have to struggle with the 'proper' analysis. Experience cannot be taught or in other words "We can teach from our experience, but we cannot teach experience". I do appreciate the experience angle that George and others bring and even so, I still often need to learn the hard way.

What I said about being able to properly analyze things is absolutely,perfectly true. If you don't take such advice to heart,it will hurt your own progress. I had to learn most of my knowledge the hard way. Some took years. I'm giving it away for free here rather than writing a book and making people pay for it. My wife thinks I'm nuts for doing this instead of a book.

Re reading it,it did perhaps sound snide,but not my intent. I have been rushed these past days. Thanks to those who understood the post.

Stewie,I hope you remember that I and a few others helped you get your work to a plateau of excellence. You used to PM me all the time for advice. And,I gave it. You followed it,too,much to the betterment of your design work.Though I don't need it,I'd be proud to have one of your saws.

[Kees Heiden]

These days, writing a book isn't going to make you rich either.

[george wilson]

Yabbut,I only got one number on the 1.5 billion Powerball!!!:)

More money would be nice,but I have more things than I need.

[Patrick Chase]

No, don't add. No one cares for your snide comments here. They add nothing to the discussion and make this forum look bad, so please just keep them to yourself.

To be blunt, when I started this thread George was one of the few people I was hoping to hear from. IMO he's added quite a lot and been extremely helpful.

Stewie makes George look like a saint when it comes to "snide", and yet he's another of the people that I was targeting and that added lots of useful information.

[Niels Cosman]

I might add,the ability to properly analyze situations is a major key to getting somewhere.

Absolutely. If anyone is hoping to make any progress in learning how to do anything efficiently and consistently, they must understand this principle. I should add that gaining expertise is a combination of experimentation and experience. Conventions of traditional practice serve as a guideline that will speed your way through the perils of the neophyte by learning from the efforts and wisdom of the masters that have proceeded us. However there are always special cases, exceptions, and integrations that will require the individual to step out of "traditional" practice and this is space where progress occurs.

These forums are great opportunities to pool the collective experience and wisdom from many voices from many corners of the world. Sometimes people upset when their opinions and experiences differ from others, this is misconstrued as a personal attack.
I am an engineer with a background in science. I believe that the best way of reaching the best solutions is often through vigorous argument and debate. Sometime on the surface this can seem to be a hostile behavior, but if the participants understand that the goal is betterment and not advancement of ego it can be a wonderful thing.

To borrow an metaphor from my hero Richard Feynman:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xerjr2_feynman-physics-lectures-rules-of-c_tech" target="_blank

[george wilson]

I had no reason to be snide anyway. No one was attacking me. You can't always tell from the printed word what the mood or intent of the person was.

[Bruce Haugen]

What I said about being able to properly analyze things is absolutely,perfectly true. If you don't take such advice to heart,it will hurt your own progress. I had to learn most of my knowledge the hard way. Some took years. I'm giving it away for free here rather than writing a book and making people pay for it. My wife thinks I'm nuts for doing this instead of a book.

Still, I do try to learn from everyone's ideas. I used to tell my kids that they should try to learn from other peoples' mistakes because they don't have enough time to make all their own mistakes and learn from them.:D

[Patrick Chase]

Absolutely. If anyone is hoping to make any progress in learning how to do anything efficiently and consistently, they must understand this principle. I should add that gaining expertise is a combination of experimentation and experience. Conventions of traditional practice serve as a guideline that will speed your way through the perils of the neophyte by learning from the efforts and wisdom of the masters that have proceeded us. However there are always special cases, exceptions, and integrations that will require the individual to step out of "traditional" practice and this is space where progress occurs.

These forums are great opportunities to pool the collective experience and wisdom from many voices from many corners of the world. Sometimes people upset when their opinions and experiences differ from others, this is misconstrued as a personal attack.
I am an engineer with a background in science. I believe that the best way of reaching the best solutions is often through vigorous argument and debate. Sometime on the surface this can seem to be a hostile behavior, but if the participants understand that the goal is betterment and not advancement of ego it can be a wonderful thing.

To borrow an metaphor from my hero Richard Feynman:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xerjr2_feynman-physics-lectures-rules-of-c_tech" target="_blank

"cargo cult (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science)woodworking"? :-)

[Christopher Charles]

George, thanks for your input to my question. Your statement reminded me of one of my grandfather's: "it is only a mistake if you do not learn from it."

Best,
C

[Niels Cosman]

"cargo cult (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science)woodworking"? :-)

Exactly!!!!

[Pat Barry]

Exactly!!!!
Re: cargo-cult. I missed it or saw the wrong video. The dude was talking about chess (he apparently is still learning how the game is played). Interesting though regarding his thoughts on integrating experiences and simplicity.

[Patrick Chase]

Re: cargo-cult. I missed it or saw the wrong video. The dude was talking about chess (he apparently is still learning how the game is played). Interesting though regarding his thoughts on integrating experiences and simplicity.

Click the link in my post. Here it is again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

Feynman was [in]famous for describing much of what his scientific "peers" did as "cargo cult science". It seemed apropos.

[Stewie Simpson]

Finished drawing up the plans for a 6 1/4" ; 85* coffin shaped Toothing Plane.

I still need to make up a solid template so I can scribe the coffin shaped sole.

I am also going to take this opportunity to make a dedicated pull tooth kerfing saw for doing the wedge abutments. A well overdue project.

Stewie;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/coffin%20shaped%20toothing%20plane/_DSC0111_zpsm18soms8.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/coffin%20shaped%20toothing%20plane/_DSC0111_zpsm18soms8.jpg.html)



Stewie;

[george wilson]

Nice drawing,Stewie,though there's no need to discontinue the chamfer fore and aft of the escapement. I don't feel like taking pictures as my wife has my camera,but My antique Moulson toothing plane has normal chamfers running the length of the body.

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi George. The stopped chamfers should add a unique feature to the main body of the plane. If I find it doesn't look quite right I can easily change it to a continuous chamfer.

Stewie;

[Kees Heiden]

Why a pull tooth saw for the abutments? Wouldn't that tend to pull out woodfibers on the top surface of the plane?

[Stewie Simpson]

Kees. I wont be using a hardback on the thin gauge kerfing saw.

Stewie;

[Kees Heiden]

No indeed, I understand that! At the moment I am trying to make a plane too (not too succesfully until now I must say) so my mind is on these matters too. I also want to make a "new" abutment saw. As I see it, it should have teeth on the push. When sawing with a pull saw I can see how the teeth would be pulling woodfibers loose form the top surface. Or from the plane sole, when I turn the plane around to saw the lower half of the abutment kerf.

[Steve Voigt]

At the moment I am trying to make a plane too (not too succesfully until now I must say) so my mind is on these matters too. I also want to make a "new" abutment saw. As I see it, it should have teeth on the push. When sawing with a pull saw I can see how the teeth would be pulling woodfibers loose form the top surface. Or from the plane sole, when I turn the plane around to saw the lower half of the abutment kerf.


Hi Kees,
I've always used a push saw. I know Dave uses a pull saw, so probably either is fine. My first was made from an old drywall saw. It worked fine. The second was from an old compass saw blade, and the most recent was from a piece of .042" 1095 that Isaac sheared for me. The big improvement on the most recent version was tapering the blade (making the back .003-.004 thinner than the cutting edge). There are some pictures of the build on my Instagram feed (https://www.instagram.com/voigt.planes/), about 15-20 pics back. Good luck with your plane!

Edit: not sure what you mean about turning the plane around…I've always made the cuts from the top only.

[Kees Heiden]

Here is my new abutment saw. No set, no ground taper in the blade either, maybe I should add that too. I cut it from an old sawblade, also about 0.042" thick. I allready tried it in my failed atempt at making a jack plane. Hopefully it works allright in the next try too.

I thought it would cause splintering where the saw exits the wood, so I thought it would be smart to saw in from both sides. But when you say it doesn't matter, I'll believe you right away.

Oh btw, it looks more ugly in real life.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll266/Kees2351/Saw/foto%203_zpsmcsfqh5g.jpg (http://s290.photobucket.com/user/Kees2351/media/Saw/foto%203_zpsmcsfqh5g.jpg.html)

[Steve Voigt]

Kees, that looks fine. Mine is pretty utilitarian as well--I don't spend a lot of time on tools to make tools. You might find it is a bit too wide for narrow planes, but you can always cut it down.

If the saw has some rake and fleam (mine is 10°/20°), and you are using beech or similar fine-grained wood, you shouldn't get any blowout. I've never had any, but ymmv.

Btw, some people just use an edge float and skip the saw entirely.

Sorry to hear about the jack! I'm sure you'll figure it out.

[Stewie Simpson]

This is the kerfing saw design I am looking at.

Stewie;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/abutment%20kerfing%20saw/_DSC0115_zps8xdne1nt.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/abutment%20kerfing%20saw/_DSC0115_zps8xdne1nt.jpg.html)

[Derek Cohen]

I have done this a few times, and used a flush cut saw in conjunction with a spacer ..


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaStrikeBlockPlane_html_1fcfa510.jpg

The space is made up a pieces to represent the blade and wedge (this was for a single iron Strike Block Plane).


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaStrikeBlockPlane_html_24a71ff0.jpg


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaStrikeBlockPlane_html_5ba5b24b.jpg



It worked well enough. The waste was removed with chisels, rasps, and floats.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Wow, you are going to make an art project out if it Stewie! Looking forward to see it.

I'm sick, so my progress came to a stop. I hope next eekend I'll feel better.

[Stewie Simpson]

Kees. I could always use the option of not posting the completed photo's.

Stewie;

[Kees Heiden]

Ha! I'll just wait in tense anticipation.

[Steve Voigt]

I have done this a few times, and used a flush cut saw in conjunction with a spacer ..


Totally agree, that works just fine. As I said, I prefer a push cut, but what is it you all say, "horses for courses"? :)

Really, the main reason to have a special saw is that most flush cut saws are too wide to use on smoothers with sub-2" irons.

[Kees Heiden]

Today I used my abutment saw in earnest. I now totally understand the desire to make it a little easier! It works, I get nice cuts, but it is a pain to fight the binding saw all the time, in the mean time rasping the skin of my fingers on the other side of the mortise.

Make it taper ground Stewie.

[george wilson]

Stewie,since your saw shown in your picture is a pull saw,you might want to consider that you'll have to grip that VERY thin,tapered handle very tightly when pulling the saw. It would tire out my hand quickly in use.

Basically tool design must first depend upon the function of the tool( as must ANY type of design for any object that has a functional use). That is what I first consider when designing any new tool.

I hope you do give this bit of truth in design some thought.

[george wilson]

By the way,there is a toothing plane on the February tool list of Patrick Leach. As is the usual case with these planes,it shows minimal wear.

[Steve Voigt]

Basically tool design must first depend upon the function of the tool( as must ANY type of design for any object that has a functional use).



That's worth taping to the wall of the shop, in big, bold letters.

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi George. Since this kerfing saw has been designed to work on a pull stroke I will give your suggestion some further thought.

Stewie;

[george wilson]

Stewie,perhaps you could use the same design,but just curve the end of the handle into a hook shape. Though your handle is graceful,it would not hurt to make the grip thicker. Even with these mods,you would still be using he same basic concept.

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewie,perhaps you could use the same design,but just curve the end of the handle into a hook shape. Though your handle is graceful,it would not hurt to make the grip thicker. Even with these mods,you would still be using he same basic concept.

George. I will stay with a max. handle thickness of 23mm to match the saw bolts I use.

Stewie;

[george wilson]

I meant width,not the required saw bolt thickness,which has to be a certain thickness.

[Stewie Simpson]

George. Attached is the updated design for the new kerfing saw. The new shaping of the handle should be more appropriate for a pull tooth saw. I have increased the handle stock width from 32mm to 42mm to allow more of a downward curve to the handles shape. The stock thickness has been reduced down to 20mm to make it feel slightly less bulky within the hand. The handle wood shown is Bubinga.

Stewie;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/abutment%20kerfing%20saw/_DSC0117_zpszmifzhoz.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/abutment%20kerfing%20saw/_DSC0117_zpszmifzhoz.jpg.html)

[Derek Cohen]

Stewie

That is not going to work either. The handle needs to taper down towards the blade. In other words, the end of the handle nearest to you needs to be wider than that closer the nuts. Otherwise you will be forced to grip more tightly to prevent your hand slipping, which is fatiguing. Turn the handle the other way around. Alternately, broaden the cross section at the end.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek. I appreciate your input. I wont be making any further changes to the handle design.

If the design of this saw blade works out fine; I will most likely make a spare retrofit saw blade with a longer toothed length for use on woodies with deeper depth of wedge abutments.

Stewie;

[george wilson]

Stewie,if you at least increased the size of the "flip out"or maybe the "fish tail" would be more more descriptive. at the end of your handle,it would give the hand something more to butt up against when pulling the blade. I think your new handle is a good improvement of the first,and is still quite graceful. Perhaps even more graceful.

I must say you make better drawings than I do. I usually just draw the design directly on the wood or the metal. If it is a complex design,like the marquetry guitar,I will make formal drawings on paper in order to get the elements of the design properly spaced so that they fill their areas properly.

Well,I did spend a few weeks making drawings for my new shop here,and additions to the house. There was considerable money involved!:) Didn't do a lot of good anyway,as the contractors had to be constantly made to re do things in accordance with what the drawings said. They had to properly relocate the windows,garage door,remake the stair case to the upstairs,re do the dormers 3 times to match the house,etc,etc.. I HATE dealing with contractors!!! Finally,the building was done,but it was uphill all the way.