I tried the chipbreaker trick...

[Matthew Springer]

for controlling tearout in the high angle LN 4.5.

My main issue was I also decided to tighten up the mouth at the same time and ended up smashing the blade against the mouth whilst trying to move the frog too far forward and mucking with the lateral adjuster. Doh.

Even so... OMG that works so much better than the robe and embroidered planing slippers.

For those of us with the extra thick chipbreaker, what chipbreaker bevel / micro angle up are people using on the front edge?

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Enlighten me, what is the "chipbreaker trick"?

An interesting read for you.

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

(http://blog.lostartpress.com/2007/12/31/chipbreakers-the-no-6-way-to-reduce-tear-out/)<edit>
side note: I assume that it means either setting it very close, or, using a feeler gauge to set the depth, but, I am just guessing.

[Adam Cruea]

This Pandora's box again. *sigh*

Chipbreaker trick: set your chip breaker extremely close to the edge.

Previous tenants here at SMC have shown the Schwarz was a goober when it came to this, I believe.

[Jim Koepke]

Enlighten me, what is the "chipbreaker trick"?

An interesting read for you.

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

(http://blog.lostartpress.com/2007/12/31/chipbreakers-the-no-6-way-to-reduce-tear-out/)<edit>
side note: I assume that it means either setting it very close, or, using a feeler gauge to set the depth, but, I am just guessing.

About 5 years latter the Schwarz comes up with a different take on use:

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

For another great read on this you will have to go to Dr. Google and search > setting a cap iron < by David Weaver.

SMC Terms Of Service do not allow posting links to other woodworking forums.

Setting the mouth tight might be an advantage best suited to bevel up planes. Of course, some woods may be more prone to splitting out.

So far my gnarliest grains seem to be tamed by a sharp blade and setting of a properly mating chip breaker. My lumber is nothing on the gnarly scale compared to others here.

jtk

[Andrew Pitonyak]

This Pandora's box again. *sigh*

Chipbreaker trick: set your chip breaker extremely close to the edge.

Previous tenants here at SMC have shown the Schwarz was a goober when it came to this, I believe.

Ahh, OK, thanks Adam. The link that I provided in my post, has Chris Schwarz specifically stating that he has decided that setting it really close caused problems. I found it looking for the "trick", and, I was surprised that he stated that it did not work to set it so close.... and the last I had remembered was that it was good to do this.

[Adam Cruea]

Ahh, OK, thanks Adam. The link that I provided in my post, has Chris Schwarz specifically stating that he has decided that setting it really close caused problems. I found it looking for the "trick", and, I was surprised that he stated that it did not work to set it so close.... and the last I had remembered was that it was good to do this.

See Jim's "consult Dr. Google about David Weaver and setting a cap iron".

Suffice to say, the Pandora's Box this opened about 2 years ago caused me to go find sawdust-covered refuge elsewhere for a while.

[Steve Voigt]

Enlighten me, what is the "chipbreaker trick"?

An interesting read for you.

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

(http://blog.lostartpress.com/2007/12/31/chipbreakers-the-no-6-way-to-reduce-tear-out/)<edit>
side note: I assume that it means either setting it very close, or, using a feeler gauge to set the depth, but, I am just guessing.

As Jim mentioned, Chris has recanted his earlier views on the chipbreaker. Here's (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/fine-tune-a-handplanes-back-iron) another recent post by him, with video.

Predating Chris's explorations of the double iron are the Dave Weaver article that Jim mentioned, and a couple nice videos by Kees. I've compiled those, and a bunch of other good cap iron links, together on this page (http://www.voigtplanes.com/p/jack-fore.html).

P.S. A note to the OP: I recommend you lose the high angle frog (if it's a 55°) if you're going to use the close-set CB. Less pushin' same great tearout reduction. ;)

[Kees Heiden]

:D

Nothing wrong with Mr. Schwarz.

And a good angle for the leading edge of your chipbreaker is 45 to 50 degrees. Some say it is even nice when it is curved, so starting at 50 degrees and then gradually less. BTW, I don't really meassure anything, not this angle, not the distance. When you still get tearout, set it a little close. When it feels like you are planing into a wall, set it a little further away from the edge. And forget about the tight mouth, combining the two is a nice way to get a clogging mouth.

[Warren Mickley]

The Chris Schwarz blog entry of 12/31/07 came on the heels of a lengthy discussion about the double iron on the Woodcentral forum. Participants in the discussion included: Stephen Shepard, R.J. Whelan, Wiley Horne, Derek Cohen, Steve Elliott, Bill Tindall, Paul Womack, Chris Scholz, Pam Niedermayer, Wilbur Pan, Dean Janzen, Larry Williams, Todd Hughes, Wayne Anderson, Adam Cherubini, and myself. Here are a few quotes:

Larry Williams wrote
Look at Steve's information on the actual performance of cap irons. How practical is it to critically maintain and adjust two pieces of steel when only one is necessary? At best a cap iron on a 45 or 47 1/2 can only marginally emulate the performance of a single iron plane bedded appropriately for the wood being used. What did woodworkers get in this change? More work, more difficulty, more effort but no real benefit. When double iron planes came in traditional choices in pitches went out. ...I think the idea that double irons are an improvement may well be the most successful marketing fabrication and gimmick of all time.

Todd Hughes wrote
So we are being asked to believe that it is easier to make a cap iron and hardware and slotted blade as it is to make a single iron and to believe that for hundereds of years double iron planes were made but they were never popular and no one wanted them and the only reason they are so common today is because they were not as good and didn't get used up by all the people that bought them but didn't want to....OK think I got it .......Todd

I wrote
>Adam, the double iron is a sophisticated instrument. For things to work well everything has to be just so. There is no shame in having trouble with it. If the idea of learning to use hot hide glue turns you off, the double iron is not for you. It takes a fair amount of practice to get a good feel for it. I can say that the benefits of learning are well worth the effort and I would not want to be without it. ...My feeling is that anyone who does not see the value of the double iron system probably does not understand how to use it.

Needless to say, I did not think much of the Schwarz commentary.

[steven c newman]

Been using the chipbreaker, set at just a silver line away from the edge. Zero gap between the two. Chipbreaker is ground to a knife edge so that only the front edge contacts the iron. I will even polish the leading edge.

I gave up counting all the times a plane has come through the shop for a rehab, that the chipbreaker is install upside down...that is, it is sitting on the bevel side of the iron, some were even ON the bevel. I have also seen a few with the chipbreaker UNDER the iron. Some were "bevel up" some were bevel down....with the cb under them.

I do not advance the frog to "close" the mouth. rarely needed, except on block planes. I have also seen bevels done so badly that they look like a wave effect...~, or a reverse camber where the middle is the part being "dubbed" over. I regrind both "styles" back into the straight line, square to the edge. Some of the bevel.....the mid part behind the edge rubs the wood, LONG before you'd ever advance the iron to get it to cut. Hollow ground, maybe a flat bevel, and the iron cuts much better.

Cambered irons like the jacks......I hold the chipbreaker just a sliver back from the corners. The middle is on it's own.

No real trick to it...

[Matthew Springer]

Thanks for the ideas. I'm not actually trying to open a worm can. I'll try a regular angle frog next, but that's pretty far down my list of issues with my shop. I need to build the tool rack first as right now the bench is pretty much covered. Right now I'm so busy de-rusting my tools, I'm just trying to remember how I put a bevel on anything.


I've been out of basically all woodworking for a decade-ish (wife, kids, overseas, etc), so it's funny looking at what's changed in 8+ years. 8 years ago everyone told me the chipbreaker went further back since it was mainly about making the iron stiffer.

[Patrick Chase]

for controlling tearout in the high angle LN 4.5.

My main issue was I also decided to tighten up the mouth at the same time and ended up smashing the blade against the mouth whilst trying to move the frog too far forward and mucking with the lateral adjuster. Doh.

Even so... OMG that works so much better than the robe and embroidered planing slippers.

For those of us with the extra thick chipbreaker, what chipbreaker bevel / micro angle up are people using on the front edge?

Don't diss the robe.

I shoot for 90-95 deg total angle (bed + chipbreaker face bevel) and a 0.25-0.5 mm high face at that angle. Others (Derek at a minimum) believe that's too low, though - I think this is one of those things where you have to experiment until you find what works in your setup. I find that a low face minimizes jamming while still being effective against tearout.

I've also started rounding the transition from the steep face to the rest of the chipbreaker, per Warren's suggestion.

EDIT: I agree with the other commenter who suggested ditching the 55-deg frog for now. I have a 55-deg #4 with a close-set chipbreaker, but that's an "emergency plane", not my primary smoother.

[Derek Cohen]

Enlighten me, what is the "chipbreaker trick"?

An interesting read for you.

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

(http://blog.lostartpress.com/2007/12/31/chipbreakers-the-no-6-way-to-reduce-tear-out/)<edit>
side note: I assume that it means either setting it very close, or, using a feeler gauge to set the depth, but, I am just guessing.

Some of you may remember the comedian/pianist Victor Borge. He told the story of his grandfather who was an inventor. He invented a softdrink "5-Up". Unfortunately, this did not do well. He tried again, this time calling it "6-Up". This too failed ... and Victor's grandfather gave up. Borge went on to say, "Little did he know how close to greatness he was!)".

The experiments by in the above blog show that Chris Schwarz just did not know how close he was. He got the placement of the chipbreaker correct. The mouth clogged. What he needed to go was to pull the frog back and open the mouth. The rest would have been history. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

The experiments by in the above blog show that Chris Schwarz just did not know how close he was. He got the placement of the chipbreaker correct. The mouth clogged. What he needed to go was to pull the frog back and open the mouth. The rest would have been history. :)


Still trying to rewrite history, eh Derek? The truth is that Schwarz might not have experimented at all if he had not just read the comments of Todd Hughes (five posts) and myself (seven posts) in December 2007. And if he had taken what I said seriously at that time he might have learned to use the double iron five years earlier.

David Charlesworth stood up on this very forum and wrote:

Well, I just learned something new.
The ridiculously close set cap iron/chipbreaker works....I found it ridiculously exciting to be able to demonstrate something "new". Balanced of course by the mild embarrasment of having given dubious advice for the last 35 years.

David Weaver stood up and freely admitted that he had once been a detractor. In contrast Chris Schwarz seems to cover his tracks. Schwarz writes:

During the last few years I have used a back iron with great success after I figured out a few of the details that make it effective.
So now it was Chris Schwarz who figured it out? after reading a thousand posts and David Weaver's essay? Then he writes:

I’ll be honest: I like all three strategies for reducing tear-out and have employed them all successfully during the last 19 years of working with handplanes.
That is like a college freshman saying "I know arithmetic and geometry and calculus and have been employing them for the past twelve years. Just a little deceptive. Frankly, with regard to the double iron, I think he is about at the Dick and Jane level.

[Derek Cohen]

mmmm ... Warren, I was kidding when I wrote that (see the smiley?). Do you have so much difficulty judging humour? Or just quick to judge?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

The planing robe works;

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/SpeedyGoomba/D734A575-4D24-4DF5-B627-1CAD7643EBBF_zpsxzmga4ya.jpg
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/SpeedyGoomba/88FCAAE9-7E6C-4DFB-8032-64BB7590E5B4_zpsoab02lba.jpg
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/SpeedyGoomba/D82993FB-EC0C-4EE3-AE02-AE9C1760FCF9_zpstreelpbo.jpg

Oh, and more importantly the chipbreaker works :D I'm the beneficiary of Warren and David's work on this stuff, and it's much appreciated. In fact David made the wooden planes.

I'd like to make a quick point, if you are working entirely by hand it's important to consider your chipbreaker settings for your roughing and truing planes as well. The less tearout in those planes the less work you will be doing with your finish plane. There are many times when I need to take material off of a board that is on the thick side but still too thin to resaw. So these settings are critical for taking 1/8"-1/4" of material off in a hurry and doing so cleanly. When I am working with the jack and try plane often times I do not need to use the finish plane unless I'm working on a panel or an exterior face.

[Patrick Chase]

The planing robe works;

[snip]

Oh, and more importantly the chipbreaker works :D I'm the beneficiary of Warren and David's work on this stuff, and it's much appreciated. In fact David made the wooden planes.

I'd like to make a quick point, if you are working entirely by hand it's important to consider your chipbreaker settings for your roughing and truing planes as well. The less tearout in those planes the less work you will be doing with your finish plane. There are many times when I need to take material off of a board that is on the thick side but still too thin to resaw. So these settings are critical for taking 1/8"-1/4" of material off in a hurry and doing so cleanly. When I am working with the jack and try plane often times I do not need to use the finish plane unless I'm working on a panel or an exterior face.

This seems to imply that you use close-set cap irons in roughing planes. Out of curiosity, how do you achieve that with a cambered iron and while taking deep cuts?

Completely agreed w.r.t. jointers - I use fairly tight cap iron sets in those.

[Glen Canaday]

I've begun to wonder lately how much the high angle frog stuff comes from woodie molding planes..iirc the majority of those are 50 degrees, with 55 pretty common as well.

[Brian Holcombe]

This seems to imply that you use close-set cap irons in roughing planes. Out of curiosity, how do you achieve that with a cambered iron and while taking deep cuts?

Completely agreed w.r.t. jointers - I use fairly tight cap iron sets in those.

It's relative, and that is what I mean to say and possibly should have said so explicitly. A .005" setting on a plane which takes a 2 hundredths shaving is a non starter, but it should be relatively close and close enough that the chip is exiting the plane straight up and out.

I was amazed at how close I needed to set the chipper before the chip would go up and out of the front of the plane on my finish plane, but it's not as close on the try plane (.005-.008" shaving) and even further on the jack plane (.020~)....but they're not far away if that makes any sense.

I actually have had shavings bump me in the shoulder from the try plane.

The Kanna is the same way, they literally flow up and out over the iron.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Isn't it possible to just grind the same camber on the cap as one do on the blade?

[Patrick Chase]

Isn't it possible to just grind the same camber on the cap as one do on the blade?

That's somewhat problematic for two reasons:

1. The mating surface on the underside of the cap iron is sloped, which means that if you grind in lengthwise camber then you also create camber in the vertical. At that point you're likely to be trapping shavings rather than breaking them. With the older-stype "humped" cap irons you can mitigate that by matching the slope of the mating surface to the iron, though this can be a little finicky in my experience (you have to make sure they match when tightened). The now-fashionable "solid" cap irons present more of a challenge because they rely on that slope to create preload/interference - if you grind that slope out you get a loose-fitting cap iron.

2. In my experience the cutting action gets pretty difficult when the leading edge of the cap iron is below the plane sole (i.e. when the shaving is thicker than the cap-iron setback)

[Patrick Chase]

It's relative, and that is what I mean to say and possibly should have said so explicitly. A .005" setting on a plane which takes a 2 hundredths shaving is a non starter, but it should be relatively close and close enough that the chip is exiting the plane straight up and out.

I was amazed at how close I needed to set the chipper before the chip would go up and out of the front of the plane on my finish plane, but it's not as close on the try plane (.005-.008" shaving) and even further on the jack plane (.020~)....but they're not far away if that makes any sense.

I actually have had shavings bump me in the shoulder from the try plane.

The Kanna is the same way, they literally flow up and out over the iron.

Thank you!

That's basically what I thought you meant, and am encouraged to learn that I'm not totally in the weeds with my jack/jointer setups.

[Jim Koepke]

I actually have had shavings bump me in the shoulder from the try plane.

The Kanna is the same way, they literally flow up and out over the iron.

There are some precautions one should consider when using a fine tuned plane:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?147087-Must-Learn-to-Keep-Mouth-Closed

Before anyone comments, it isn't about the plane's mouth.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

There are some precautions one should consider when using a fine tuned plane:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?147087-Must-Learn-to-Keep-Mouth-Closed

Before anyone comments, it isn't about the plane's mouth.

jtk

Money shot.

[Brian Holcombe]

Thank you!

That's basically what I thought you meant, and am encouraged to learn that I'm not totally in the weeds with my jack/jointer setups.

Anytime, Cheers!

[Joshua Hancock]

I found this to be immensely insightful.

http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/setting-the-cap-iron-chip-breaker-video/

not a contradiction to anything above, just a different insight into the mechanics.

[george wilson]

Sounds like Schwartz is the one trying to rewrite history. I think he can be a slippery customer at times.

[Matthew Springer]

That photo brings new meaning to the term "infill".

[Patrick Chase]

Sounds like Schwartz is the one trying to rewrite history. I think he can be a slippery customer at times.

Indeed. I liked him a lot more when he was upfront that he was a professional journalist and amateur woodworker.

[george wilson]

Well,when you set yourself up as the greatest expert,and write your every thought down in magazines and blogs,you can get trapped!!:) but,his fans probably disregard it anyway.

[Patrick Chase]

Well,when you set yourself up as the greatest expert,and write your every thought down in magazines and blogs,you can get trapped!!:) but,his fans probably disregard it anyway.

You can also get trapped by being too close to or dependent on advertisers with an agenda of their own.

The whole "cap-iron revolution" came at a deeply inopportune time for the industry, inasmuch as everybody (manufacturers, magazines, etc) had recently jumped on the bevel-up bandwagon. A lot of advertising space and editorial column-inches were being spent pushing the idea that 62-ish planes made conventional BD designs "obsolete".

[george wilson]

i suppose you could get entangled with them. But,how do you suddenly turn around and say that you've been using the chip breaker for many many (19) years? Re: post #14? I'm taking Warren's word that that was what Chris said. I don't read his blog. I'm not a "blogster",I guess! And,I'm not active enough right now to start my own blog. It would die of boredom if I did!!!:) When I DO work,it is most frequently in making something out of metal rather than wood. One of the last things I did in wood was to make a wooden(mahogany) plug for the funerary urn of a friend's grandmother. A big responsibility,i thought,since it was her eternal resting place. Made a guitar(possibly my best sounding ever) a few years ago. Most often I do work that I am commissioned to do.

Well,I have admitted that I was not aware of the PROPER use of the chip breaker myself. Still managed to do decent work by planing straight across the grain,and scraping. Many instruments are made of very curly maple. The small thumb planes that violin makers use also come with toothed irons with flat ended teeth that break up the chips into many very narrow ones. Different action from the near vertical blades of the larger cabinet maker's toothing planes. On those tiny planes(of the violin maker),and with them being pushed with only the thumb and forefinger,a regular,closely set chip breaker would be impractical. None of them come with tiny chip breakers!!:) With my want and my job to make musical instruments for many years,I was sort of working outside of the field of cabinet making. I don't know how far back these little violin maker's planes go,but I have seen examples from the 16th. C.. They missed out on the advancements of larger planes,being too small to have chip breakers. Some have 1/4" wide blades.

But,I can tell you that no one in the cabinet maker's shop knew about the proper use of the chip breaker either. And may still not since they don't post on this forum,or on the other forum where David or Warren post.

[Derek Cohen]

... The whole "cap-iron revolution" came at a deeply inopportune time for the industry, inasmuch as everybody (manufacturers, magazines, etc) had recently jumped on the bevel-up bandwagon. A lot of advertising space and editorial column-inches were being spent pushing the idea that 62-ish planes made conventional BD designs "obsolete".

At the time, without using the chipbreaker, high angled planes were all there was. High cutting angles were easiest on BU planes - the reason I used them so much.

Today there is a choice. I now predominantly use BD planes with the chipbreaker, nevertheless nothing has changed the fact that BU planes work extremely well with interlocked hard woods. Further, they are far easier to master than the chipbreaker. I have no doubt that Industry has likely not felt the impact of the chipbreaker "revolution".

Regards from Perth

Derek

[lowell holmes]

I've been using Stanley and similar planes for years. I've had no issues with chip breakers. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. :)

I don't do a lot with exotic wood, but have used substantial amounts of curly maple. I have gone to bevel up planes on occasions.

I currently have Lee Valley irons and breakers in my Bedrocks. My 605 has stock iron and breaker in it and it does a great job producing fine, translucent shavings in most wood.

[george wilson]

Derek,our Millwork Shop bought a nice new Northfield thickness planer. It planes the curliest wood like magic! It does this by having nearly vertical carbide cutters about 3/4" wide,which scrape the wood. WITH the help of a 10 H.P. motor!!

It is not like the numerous segmented blade cutterheads now optional on Grizzly and other home shop type machines.( The carbide cutters in the Northfield are ground in place with the sharpening attachment supplied with the planer. But it cost $30,000 dollars!) They (The Byrd type cutterheads) will plane very smoothly too. Their carbide inserts cut at a very steep angle . But,they apparently leave slightly scalloped grooves in the wood. You rotate them 4 times to use all 4 surfaces of the carbide inserts. Then,you sell your car to buy new inserts!!!

Some of the more clever wood workers used to adapt their normal HSS blades to cut with a scraping action,by grinding a back angle on the front edge of the HSS knives. That worked,too. Takes a lot more power to scrape,though. Not sure if my 3 HP planer could handle that.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi George

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

Those carbide inserts are not THAT expensive. I bought some extras a while back, but cannot recall the price. I have a Hammer A3-31 combination jointer-thicknesser/planer. It is pure magic! No scalloped surfaces. Smooth as a baby's bottom. I've had the machine about 2 years and have not yet rotated an insert. The four sides could last me 10 years or more. I am not sure whether the cutters work because they are high angled, like the Northfield, or because they are skewed.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

That was an exaggeration on my part,if you had to replace ALL the cutters at once!!:) And thank you!!

[Patrick Chase]

Derek,our Millwork Shop bought a nice new Northfield thickness planer. It planes the curliest wood like magic! It does this by having nearly vertical carbide cutters about 3/4" wide,which scrape the wood. WITH the help of a 10 H.P. motor!!

It is not like the numerous segmented blade cutterheads now optional on Grizzly and other home shop type machines.( The carbide cutters in the Northfield are ground in place with the sharpening attachment supplied with the planer. But it cost $30,000 dollars!) They (The Byrd type cutterheads) will plane very smoothly too. Their carbide inserts cut at a very steep angle . But,they apparently leave slightly scalloped grooves in the wood. You rotate them 4 times to use all 4 surfaces of the carbide inserts. Then,you sell your car to buy new inserts!!!

Some of the more clever wood workers used to adapt their normal HSS blades to cut with a scraping action,by grinding a back angle on the front edge of the HSS knives. That worked,too. Takes a lot more power to scrape,though. Not sure if my 3 HP planer could handle that.

I use a Byrd Shelix head in a DW735 lunchbox planer. As somebody else said, the replacement inserts aren't expensive at all - $25 for 10 (http://www.amazon.com/Byrd-Tool-H7354-Indexable-Carbide/dp/B000E9NKKY), and the 13" head in my DeWalt only takes 40 in total. Sharpening your own HSS blades is cheaper in terms of dollars spent, but the inserts look pretty good when you take time/productivity into account.

w.r.t. the scalloping: It's real (and easily seen by holding the piece up to a grazing light source), but it's on the order of 1-2 mils deep and very easily removed. Presumably anybody on this forum would follow up with a smooth plane anyway :-).

EDIT: Happy Birthday!

[Patrick Chase]

At the time, without using the chipbreaker, high angled planes were all there was. High cutting angles were easiest on BU planes - the reason I used them so much.

Very true. I was in the same boat.

The thing that I find interesting is that with hindsight it's easy to spot references here and there from people who, like Warren, were obviously clued in all along. IMO what happened a few years ago wasn't so much a matter of discovery (the information was literally out there for centuries) as of critical mass - those voices finally started to be accepted instead of disparaged. It's something of an exercise in groupthink and mob psychology, and therefore more in your professional balliwick than mine :-).

The other thing to consider is that high-angle irons in BU planes are much less finicky than close-set cap irons. I suspect that partially explains why the mass periodicals continue to advocate that approach.

[Jim Koepke]

The other thing to consider is that high-angle irons in BU planes are much less finicky than close-set cap irons. I suspect that partially explains why the mass periodicals continue to advocate that approach.

It may be that people are always in a hurry. They will try setting the chip breaker close with a tight mouth and get jammed shavings and feel that proves it is nonsense.

Some woodworkers might look at it and try to troubleshoot the situation.

Some may try it in a plane with an open mouth and find there is something to this "chip breaker stuff."

The chip breaker can be very finicky. Any slight crack or even a burr can cause shavings to catch and jam. In my opinion, the parts most likely to suffer abuse and have need of correction on a double iron plane is the blade and chip breaker. Not many of my planes came with these piece properly mated.

jtk

[george wilson]

At the Toolmaker's Shop,I had several LN planes. One was a BU smooth plane. If I got it very sharp,and finely adjusted,I could be able to plane reasonably curly maple without it chipping out. But,the tightly curled maple I'd use on the back of a musical instrument was another matter. However,I was in costume at that time,and could not use modern BU planes back then,even if they had been available at that time.

[Derek Cohen]

.... The other thing to consider is that high-angle irons in BU planes are much less finicky than close-set cap irons. I suspect that partially explains why the mass periodicals continue to advocate that approach.

Patrick, I've said the same for the past few years. Some hear this comment as negation or rejection of the chipbreaker. That would be incorrect. I support both strategies, perhaps all strategies that get you there, while acknowleding that some work better (for some) than others.

We on the fori are a small community of woodworkers. The experienced segment are a smaller percentage still. The vocal voice are likely not representative of those that do or don't. My impression, having visited many fori, is that most do not use woods that challenge planing technique and that, for the most part, a common angle plane in either BU or BD (sans closed chipbreaker) would suffice. Which is easier to set up? That answer is obvious.

This is why BU planes will continue to flourish. But also equally why vintage Baileys will do so as well. There are just too few who will test the limits, that is who actually need a high angle or a closed chipbreaker to produce a clear surface. It is from this very select group that feedback would be valuable in regard to matters of practicality and preference.

I am more inclined to use the closed chipbreaker on my BD planes than a high angle on a BU plane, however I am one of those gung-ho types that is prepared to persevere in order to succeed. Not all see the need or have the willingness to take this path. When I do use the BU planes, I am reminded that they work exceedingly well and require little set up skills, however they do tend to require a honing guide to sharpen the blades ... and it is this factor that sends me back to the BD planes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, I've said the same for the past few years. Some hear this comment as negation or rejection of the chipbreaker. That would be incorrect. I support both strategies, perhaps all strategies that get you there, while acknowleding that some work better (for some) than others.

I agree 100%. The problem is that that's a rather subtle argument by forum standards, of the sort that doesn't go over well with the "you're with us or you're against us" crowd. To make matters worse folks have built up a lot of "scar tissue" around these contentious topics (and on a *completely* unrelated note, I've made a mental note to never, ever diss Spyderco stones again... :-).

It also sounds fairly arrogant when we say things like "I prefer a close-set cap iron but I tell my less obsessive friends to just use a high-angle blade on a BU plane", even though the underlying logic has more to do with OCD (specifically the fact that I have it more than most) than ability...

[Brian Holcombe]

We on the fori are a small community of woodworkers. The experienced segment are a smaller percentage still. The vocal voice are likely not representative of those that do or don't. My impression, having visited many fori, is that most do not use woods that challenge planing technique and that, for the most part, a common angle plane in either BU or BD (sans closed chipbreaker) would suffice. Which is easier to set up? That answer is obvious.

This is why BU planes will continue to flourish. But also equally why vintage Baileys will do so as well. There are just too few who will test the limits, that is who actually need a high angle or a closed chipbreaker to produce a clear surface. It is from this very select group that feedback would be valuable in regard to matters of practicality and preference.

Derek

I certainly prefer perfect lumber, but even that offers its challenge. The challenge of clear lumber is how perfect a sheen you can apply to it. I've seen an absolute mirror surface applied to old growth cypress. That is a challenge in the same way that planing grain reversals is a challenge.

The reality is, however, that perfect lumber is a particularly rare bird and even junk pile walnut is going to offer a good challenge to most. So I feel situations calling for proper setup are common enough, probably more common than clear stock.

[george wilson]

I'm also a gung ho type,and will spent great amounts of effort on things that interest me. I spent hundreds of hours experimenting with old recipes of varnish. A fair amount of money,too,on the ingredients,some of which are very difficult to find these days.

I wish I had taken my notes with me in a trip to Italy. I found an incredible art store in Florence that sold hundreds of types of resins and pigments. But,all in Italian,of course. There must be many artists there experimenting on the techniques of the old masters. And,plenty of ancient work to see there,too! A very interesting place. I could not afford to live there these days. My director sometimes got on my case,as much time as I spent on varnishes. Being a non builder,he failed to fully see the importance of violin varnishes. But I still persevered as he wasn't about to take any serious effort to prevent my experimenting! At least,he was a non craftsman who did appreciate a good piece of work. The only director out of maybe 5 successive ones who seemed to do so. That includes Jay Gaynor. Jay never said anything,so I never knew what he thought of a finished project that he might have asked me to do.

About polished wood: Finishes may not stick to them as well as to a finely sanded surface,so be careful. Especially on woods like cypress,containing a little oil.

[Brian Holcombe]

Thanks George, I will keep that in mind for my French polishing experiments :D

Ah, Florence, brings back very good memories.

I understand there to be quite a bit of debate around the varnishes that were used by the old masters created and applied to their violins.

[Jim Koepke]

I understand there to be quite a bit of debate around the varnishes that were used by the old masters created and applied to their violins.

Everything else looked the same so the magic must have been in the varnish, no?

jtk

[george wilson]

Fact was,everyone in that area of Italy used the SAME varnish. The only one outside the area who also used the same varnish was Jacob Stainer in Austria(or was it Germany?). But,he had lived and worked in Italy in his younger years.

It is possible that the exact flax plants friom which the oil might have been pressed,has become extinct,as have so many plants now used for food or industrially. No one knows what was really in the varnish. But,it was commonly available at the time.

[Mike Holbrook]

Yesterday was George's birthday! happy birthday George! This getting older can be a challenge that even our OCD natures have problems working around ;-)

I think I may be among the OCD posters, although far from the experience level of many others. It does seem to me that different posters may have very different needs/likes/preferences/work that precipitate some of the more heated debates.

I got interested in green woodworking which places a different slant on things. Lately the wife and I have been making a concerted effort to downsize, practically everything. Part of the downsize will probably entail moving to a smaller, simpler, more rustic home, which has been moving me even further towards more rustic designs. Where many posters here are interested in the smoothest surfaces possible, I have become more & more interested in textured surfaces. I have been working on smoothing planes recently and trying to figure out if/what kind of/ what cutting angles....smooth plane would be appropriate for me. It is hard to follow very specific needs/paths in long posts, which I think may cause frustration and ill will at times. Any form of communication, and certainly written forums, have limitations in their ability to portray posters exact thoughts, especially as those thoughts become more detailed. The entire "chipbreaker trick" issue may be the ultimate exzmple.

[Brian Holcombe]

George,

Thats makes a lot of sense that the plants would now be extinct, making it impossible to duplicate. There is so much lore around the top makers but it also makes more sense that the varnish would have been common to the area.

I find the topic intriguing, along with speculation on how the ideal tones were created. It's somewhat lost on me, not being an instrument maker, but I still find it interesting.

[Prashun Patel]

George,

That makes a lot of sense that the plants would now be extinct, making it impossible to duplicate.

I doubt the plants are extinct. Finishes have changed because of chemical technology which rendered older finishes either inferior or economically not feasible to keep creating.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

This is another one of those issues that simply cannot be empirically proven, but I certainly think it is possible for the plants to be extinct.

I remember when I was a kid my grandparents had a type of squash that they particularly liked. You could not buy the seeds anywhere, it was a hybrid variety that grew in their garden and nowhere else. Every year they saved seeds for the next year. After my grandmother died, nobody kept that up, and while you can obviously find squash, that particular variety is no longer in existence. In agriculture, new varieties tend to displace older breeds. Some older breeds survive (the Belted Galloway or the Texas Longhorn for example). Others are simply forgotten and die out.

[george wilson]

The World has been "standardizing" plants we eat so that only a small portion of once used food plants are available. This may have also happened to things like flax plants.

Efforts have been made to safeguard seeds of plants that are no longer commercially used. This is why we have those "seed banks" that are located in the far North.

I have no proof that flax plants once used are now not grown. Or even proof that linseed oil was the oil used in the "Cremona" varnish. But,in my many years in public,I was visiter by biologists ,chemists,and all sorts of people that were interested in the mystery of this varnish,which it seems that every builder in the region used. Some did put forth the hypothesis that the particular plants that yielded drying oils,such as flax plants, might not now be in use.

Some of them elaborated on the very large number of plants that are just no longer grown because standardization of things like food plants has made agriculture more efficient(if not as interesting).

[Jim Koepke]

This is another one of those issues that simply cannot be empirically proven, but I certainly think it is possible for the plants to be extinct.

Dr. Google indicates a lot of extinct plants.

As does Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_plants

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

George,

Thats makes a lot of sense that the plants would now be extinct, making it impossible to duplicate. There is so much lore around the top makers but it also makes more sense that the varnish would have been common to the area.

I find the topic intriguing, along with speculation on how the ideal tones were created. It's somewhat lost on me, not being an instrument maker, but I still find it interesting.

I was/am a cellist so I have some interest in this one. My (admittedly very incomplete) understanding is the same as what George said: Before modern analytical methods there was a widespread assumption that at least some of the difference between contemporaneous makers was in the varnish. That assumption has been largely invalidated.

EDIT: Dr-my-employer-that-does-search says Stainer was from present-day Austria (Austria's borders have changed quite a bit over the centuries, so one must be careful to differentiate).

[Mel Fulks]

The different plant thing is interesting and will at some point,no doubt, will be funded and studied. My guess is that the oil from a slightly different plant would be no different . Few plants are really eradicated even when a lot of money is spent in that effort. Just as they are "back breeding " animals maybe they will do same thing with plants. Since dna some plants have been entirely reclassified. The official names were way off. But in regard to the varnish I think the containers for oil would be studied first; I mean ,I don't think they were stainless steel or plastic.

[george wilson]

Dangerous assumption about oils being the same. They can have very different optical qualities. So can resins as well. There is just no way of analyzing the old varnish. All you're going to get is that they are made of hydrocarbons.

Another thing is how you USE the oil. Dutch painters made their paintings extra beautiful by use of stand oil,which is just oxygen thickened linseed oil. But,is it JUST?

I am sure the different plant thing HAS been studied. That is why they have millions of seeds from no longer grown plants in the seed banks. But,no one to my knowledge has grown big fields full of defunct flax to press out the oil,and make experimental varnishes from it.

In reality,the only remaining original varnish on just about ALL Strads is a little bit in the bottoms of the "gutters" around the edges,where the purfling is. There are very few varnish intact survivors.

Stradivari put spirit varnish rich in color over oil based undercoats. The spirit varnish did not stick very well,and has chipped off in high wear areas,creating a mottled effect that some find quite beautiful. But,in reality applying spirit over oil was a mistake originally.

Old varnishes were kept in ceramic containers with lids tied on. Artist's oil paints were sold in pig bladders tied shut. You poked a hole in them and inserted wood plugs when you were done with them for the day. Must have been a HUGE PAIN keeping them from drying out,or getting at the paint without a big mess. The GOOD artists made their own paints and ground their own pigments.

One of the oddball "tools" I made were watercolor brushes for the Geddy house,where they taught little classes to kids about water coloring. They had ferrules made from feather quills tied on with wire to the wooden handles. I made birdies for them,too,and the badminton rackets they used. I always felt that Williamsburg ought to make the museum more interesting for kids. Good for business. Made them stilts,too.

[Mel Fulks]

I told you they didn't use steel or plastic! ...It would be relatively simple to make oil from from different kinds of flax and compare them as oil and later as varnish.

[george wilson]

How many kinds of flax oil are available. I mean made from different varieties of flax?

[Mel Fulks]

I have no idea,that's what I meant about someone getting a grant at some point. Not saying they would make some major discovery but it would at least address the question of whether or not different kinds of flax plants make oils with enough differences to make it reasonable to think the same kind of flax is needed as what was used earlier. If it was determined that they all made varnishes of equal quality then the possibility of a special lost oil could be put aside.

[Patrick Chase]

Dangerous assumption about oils being the same. They can have very different optical qualities. So can resins as well. There is just no way of analyzing the old varnish. All you're going to get is that they are made of hydrocarbons.

I think you'll get a bit more than just "hydrocarbons", but your broader point is absolutely right and is something that a lot of people miss: When you analyze a finish that undergoes complex reactions after application (polymerization or curing as opposed to simple drying) all you learn is the endpoint, not how it got there.

Even with a simple drying finish like Shellac you may not be able to determine what solvent was used or in what concentration, and that matters a lot for penetration/thickness/etc.

[Warren Mickley]

I don't think the violin makers of 1680 had oodles of choices in linseed oils. I think they knew their materials and worked with what they had. Frankly I would take a great maker with a run-of-the-mill oil over a crappy maker with the finest oil.

Years ago when I talked about getting a fine surface in any wood with a Bailey plane, some people on the fora actually thought I had just lucked out and gotten a rare fine plane. They could not imagine there was any skill or judgement involved. Skill and judgement are what distinguish the great 17th century makers and the great 21st century makers of violins also, not some lucky varnish.

In 1871 one of my relations travelled to Absam near Innsbruck hoping to find Jacob Stainer's residence. He had trouble finding any information. He stopped in a small shop and asked about Stainer. The old women informed him there were no Stainers and no violin makers in the town. When he mentioned two hundred years ago she said "I'm not 200 years old." He did find a church with a stone table with Stainer's name and dates.

[george wilson]

I never said that "some lucky varnish" was the thing that made a violin great. I did say that many violin makers in the region used that varnish. Not all of them made great instruments,either. In fact,there is very,very little difference between great violins made even today,and old Italian masterpieces. Experts have been fooled listening to different violins being played behind screens. Some being Strads or other great violins from the past.

It doesn't matter what you think violin makers of 1680 had in terms of choices of varnish oils. Neither you nor I were there to know what choices they had.

Stainer was also called Steiner. I am not sure we actually know his correct name. We do know that he worked at a stone workbench,and went crazy later in life. So,they chained him to his heavy stone bench.

Taste in violin tone has changed over time. When he was alive,Stainer's violins were better liked than the great Italian violins. Today,more power is wanted,instead of the more flute like tones of the Steiners,so other violins are preferred.

There is so much hocus pokus and snobbery in the World of violins,it is very hard to arrive at the truth about anything to do with them.

[Patrick Chase]

[QUOTE=george wilson;2532738When he was alive,Stainer's violins were better liked than the great Italian violins. Today,more power is wanted,instead of the more flute like tones of the Steiners,so other violins are preferred.[/QUOTE]

I almost brought the same point up earlier, but thought it would be a bit obscure for the forum. If you look at the size/composition of the groups that performed Baroque music (small) and the venues in which it was performed (also small) it's vastly different from common practice today. There are many chamber groups that strive to recreate "authentic" Baroque performances with varying degrees of success. It's worth checking out if you're at all interested (unless they're messing with alternative tunings and you have absolute pitch as I do. Anything other than A440 hz is like nails on chalkboard for me).

As George says, the reputation of the Italian makers grew quite a bit over the centuries because the music changed in a way that favored their attributes. The relatively "assertive" tone of the Strads etc was better suited to concert halls...

[steven c newman]

For awhile, there was a group from UK, that all they played was Ukeleles, and MAYBE a accoustic bass guitar.....Songs like the Theme from The Good, The bad, and the Ugly.

Now, I rehabbed a block plane the other day. Bevel up, and no chipbreaker...but...
332220
Gave it a ride along some 4/4 edge grain Pine. Might need a hair more strop? Wasn't any tearout, though.

[Warren Mickley]

There are many chamber groups that strive to recreate "authentic" Baroque performances with varying degrees of success. It's worth checking out if you're at all interested (unless they're messing with alternative tunings and you have absolute pitch as I do. Anything other than A440 hz is like nails on chalkboard for me).


My mother played the violin for 82 years and had perfect pitch until about a year after quitting. Recently I came across a picture of her playing the piano with my brother playing the flute. Then I remembered that in those days our piano was a half tone flat. So if my brother was playing in C, she was reading the music in C, fingering in Db and hearing C. It never gave her a problem.

Now in our neighborhood we get together and sing hymns periodically. Occasionally the guy with the pitch pipe changes the key a little up or down. He has learned that I get very confused unless he says ahead of time what the new key is, Then I transpose in my head and all is well.

[Stewie Simpson]

When you start a forum thread you make an assumption that the comments will remain on topic.

[Brian Holcombe]

When do we ever stay on topic? :D

[Stewie Simpson]

When do we ever stay on topic? :D

Why start a thread if the comments are going to veer off topic.

[Brian Holcombe]

Well, you have to start somewhere...

The handtoolers are an odd group, and this how you find out exactly how odd we are. ;)

[Patrick Chase]

My mother played the violin for 82 years and had perfect pitch until about a year after quitting. Recently I came across a picture of her playing the piano with my brother playing the flute. Then I remembered that in those days our piano was a half tone flat. So if my brother was playing in C, she was reading the music in C, fingering in Db and hearing C. It never gave her a problem.

Now in our neighborhood we get together and sing hymns periodically. Occasionally the guy with the pitch pipe changes the key a little up or down. He has learned that I get very confused unless he says ahead of time what the new key is, Then I transpose in my head and all is well.

Half a step up or down isn't a problem because it's just a transposition within the A440 tonal system as you say. Something like A432 is a whole different matter though. It just sounds wrong if you have absolute pitch and are trained to A440.

Absolute pitch (I don't like to use the term "perfect" for a number of reasons) just means that you have a "built in" reference to some tonal system. If you don't continue to train it then it may drift as you describe.

[Patrick Chase]

When you start a forum thread you make an assumption that the comments will remain on topic.

OK, we'll let the OP tell us if he wants us to stop then :-).

Seriously, this is something of a love-in by Internet forum standards. I'd let it ride if it were my thread...

[Steve Voigt]

Oh, relax Stewie. People have wide-ranging interests and a little drift is inevitable. As it happens, I play violin and teach freshman/sophomore music theory, so I've thoroughly enjoyed the detour into intonation and violin varnishes.

[Stewie Simpson]

Fair enough Steve.

[Jim Koepke]

Why start a thread if the comments are going to veer off topic.

How else how else do you expect me to learn so much about violins if it isn't covered in a chip breaker thread?

I could veer off into a lame joke that would likely get people to stop looking at this thread.

A woman is aghast looking at a police officer with a smoking gun standing over a wounded violinist. The police officer looks at the terrified woman and asks, "lady how else do you expect me to stop violins in the street?"

Ducking and running for cover,

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Why start a thread if the comments are going to veer off topic.

Stewie

Simply start a thread on violins, and then watch it morph into one on chipbreakers. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek. You seem fairly chirpy. I should send you a copy of the pm I received from the aussie forum moderator.

Stewie;

[george wilson]

I made many odd ball things as tool maker. One thing I made was a 420 A (18th. C.. pitch tuning fork for my journeymen still in the cabinet shop making spinets. They had been using my original tuning fork,but I decided I wanted it back before it magically became "museum property". Such things are rarer than actual instruments from the period.

The pitch has been increased over time to make instruments like violins play louder. Of course,wind instruments may not be adjustable. Strings can be tightened and necks lengthened on string instruments.

It is often the case that topics will get changed in a thread. However,I'll try staying on topic now.

[george wilson]

It is a fact that they used to use chip breakers on violins,but they kept pinching the player's fingers!!:)

[Roderick Gentry]

I've been out of basically all woodworking for a decade-ish (wife, kids, overseas, etc), so it's funny looking at what's changed in 8+ years. 8 years ago everyone told me the chipbreaker went further back since it was mainly about making the iron stiffer.

It's an either or thing. Some cases you need more bite. No chipbreaker on my axe, or my scrub plane, some times you are taking so little of a cut that it comes off the wood like wet cheese cloth, the breaker doesn't do anything. Lots of American wood workers have been using Japanese planes for 50 years now, on them the chip breaker adjusts independently of the blade, you tap it into place as you plane, and at some point the shaving goes straight up and doesn't curl. You tap again and it goes over the edge, and you have to sharpen again. All this has been known for a long time. But there is a refreshing parallel newbieism in play also.

[Roderick Gentry]

David Weaver stood up and freely admitted that he had once been a detractor. In contrast Chris Schwarz seems to cover his tracks. Schwarz writes:

So now it was Chris Schwarz who figured it out? after reading a thousand posts and David Weaver's essay? Then he writes:

That is like a college freshman saying "I know arithmetic and geometry and calculus and have been employing them for the past twelve years. Just a little deceptive. Frankly, with regard to the double iron, I think he is about at the Dick and Jane level.

It remains true that more than one method is useful. And in the pruned quote, his statement that he figured out a few details doesn't mean he is taking credit. He tried it, apparently failed, then he later got there. We all go through that process. Pretty much everything I ever figured out was not new. But in many cases, particularly before video or the internet, it took a lot of figuring to get there. And it is also the case that once you dismiss something as a bad idea, the route back is blocked for you. Not just the ego thing, but you now have evidence it doesn't work, and what series of realizations will you have to go through to get back there, it is a road of discovery. Now that may not be what happened here, but I don't see why one has to jump to character assassination.

There are a lot of partial things that happen, particularly if you are knowledgeable. When this breaker trick first came up, I was surprised everyone didn't know it. I did a search of all my woodworking books and was surprised that there was little mention of a close breaker, and certainly no ABC DIY of how to get the result. I had always known due to using Japanese planes. But then I realized I never set up my Bailey planes the same way. Mostly they were unused. If someone with a Bailey plane had asked me how to get a great result at one time I might have suggested get a wooden plane or learn to sharpen, I wouldn't have said anything about the trick. So you can know and sorta know, all at the same time. In public it is safer to pretend you didn't know because seeming to steal credit is more condemned than feigned ignorance , but it may not be true. Speaking of which, no living person deserves credit for anything other than popularizing this among some amateurs. And the clamoring for credit is just slowing down the rate at which the pendulum will return to it's normal position. Most planing will only be done with breakers, by those who don't plane much of a project other than the finishing steps, or work a wide variety of woods.

Tom

[Roderick Gentry]

You can also get trapped by being too close to or dependent on advertisers with an agenda of their own.

The whole "cap-iron revolution" came at a deeply inopportune time for the industry, inasmuch as everybody (manufacturers, magazines, etc) had recently jumped on the bevel-up bandwagon. A lot of advertising space and editorial column-inches were being spent pushing the idea that 62-ish planes made conventional BD designs "obsolete".


I have always felt that, not that people sold out, but that the time was bad. But I don't actually know that. Does anyone know sales figures. It could be a coke/coke classic effect where they sold a ton of BUs, and then along comes this new thing and they can sell the punters all new planes... Again.

The end of retail I was in during school was consumed with selling new gear every year. Retail is usually about new stuff, not optimizing 2000 year old gear. If they can sell people all the old movies on Blueray, anything is possible.

Also, how is a guy a big doofus for being the last guy to get the memo on breakers, while at the same time being deeply involved in a conspiracy to sell inferior BU planes? To prepare for that scam wouldn't one need to be in on the breaker trick?

At some point a guy who blogs every day is going to make a bad call, but he has to go out there every day with an opinion, and if he believes BU is the better way, which could still be true for many, then he owes them that opinion. Also, people who spent a ton on a full set of BU planes need to know the new tech does not have many points in it, and will never be the difference between Getting er done, or not.

[george wilson]

I can't follow this twisted logic. Sounds like it is tainted by the need to protect a beloved blogger.

[Mark AJ Allen]

Unfortunately, I'm late to the party and looking to expand my skills; I'm getting the impression that BU's are some kind of marketing scheme, yet I'm also reading many people, including myself have great success with them. Also, some of you have went back to BD's so it sounds like some enlightenment; I'm not there yet. Is there some scenario where BU's just don't get the job done and you reach for the BD?

[Jim Koepke]

Is there some scenario where BU's just don't get the job done and you reach for the BD?

There are scenarios where I find the BD does a better job as there are scenarios where the BU does better.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Unfortunately, I'm late to the party and looking to expand my skills; I'm getting the impression that BU's are some kind of marketing scheme, yet I'm also reading many people, including myself have great success with them. Also, some of you have went back to BD's so it sounds like some enlightenment; I'm not there yet. Is there some scenario where BU's just don't get the job done and you reach for the BD?

Mark, before it became understood that the chipbreaker could be set to minimise tearout, the main weapon was a high cutting angle. The way to go over the past decade in that regard was a BU plane - easier to set up and more readily available for most. I am a convert to the chipbreaker, but that does not invalidate the BU plane. It remains a reliable tool, in that it works as well as it ever did. The reason I prefer to use a BD plane is that the blades are easier to freehand, while setting up a BU blade is best with a honing guide. If you use the latter anyway, and you are new to planes and working interlocked grain, then go for a BU plane. You have to be somewhat gung ho and determined as a person to use chipbreakers since they have a steeper learning curve. Ultimately rewarding, however.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

I have always felt that, not that people sold out, but that the time was bad. But I don't actually know that. Does anyone know sales figures. It could be a coke/coke classic effect where they sold a ton of BUs, and then along comes this new thing and they can sell the punters all new planes... Again.

The end of retail I was in during school was consumed with selling new gear every year. Retail is usually about new stuff, not optimizing 2000 year old gear. If they can sell people all the old movies on Blueray, anything is possible.

Also, how is a guy a big doofus for being the last guy to get the memo on breakers, while at the same time being deeply involved in a conspiracy to sell inferior BU planes? To prepare for that scam wouldn't one need to be in on the breaker trick?

At some point a guy who blogs every day is going to make a bad call, but he has to go out there every day with an opinion, and if he believes BU is the better way, which could still be true for many, then he owes them that opinion. Also, people who spent a ton on a full set of BU planes need to know the new tech does not have many points in it, and will never be the difference between Getting er done, or not.

If I could retract that comment at this point I would, because what I see as "the realities of doing business" (in *any* industry) appear to sound like evil conspiracies to others, and are completely misunderstood by a third group.

To be clear, I don't think that Chris or anybody else knew all about chipbreakers and actively suppressed that knowledge.

I do think that people, publications, and manufacturers all have "inertia". They generally can't turn on a dime in response to new information, and the more thoroughly they've committed to some previous direction the harder it is to adopt a new one.

[Patrick Chase]

Unfortunately, I'm late to the party and looking to expand my skills; I'm getting the impression that BU's are some kind of marketing scheme, yet I'm also reading many people, including myself have great success with them. Also, some of you have went back to BD's so it sounds like some enlightenment; I'm not there yet. Is there some scenario where BU's just don't get the job done and you reach for the BD?

Two words: Surface quality. High cutting angles produce "less glassy" surfaces.

As a purely hypothetical example, if the wood you are planing is such that you need either a 45-deg BD plane with a close-set iron and a 55-deg BU to adequately control tearout, then the BD plane will almost certainly give you a better surface.

The tradeoff is that close-set cap irons are finicky and require some skill and dedication. If you just want "fire and forget" planing and are willing to leave some surface quality on the table to get it, then BU is probably the right call.

[Brian Holcombe]

Unless you want absolutely minimal amount taken off, an alternative to nailing the chip breaker dimension is to set it close and dial in the shaving. Eventually you will hit a combination that will work to shoot the shaving up and out.

I do this as a quick and easy setup when surfacing parts, I tend to err on the side of very close when setting for planing panels because I don't want to take a heavy cut with my smoother on those.

I'm working on some art frames right now, I buy 3/8" thick quarter sawn maple which is planed to dimension and so I basically only work it with a smoother. The shaving thickness is not critical because there is usually some slight tear out to remove wherever the machine tore out the surface. Maple varies so much that I would be resetting my breaker on every board, so I just lighten up on the cut or take a larger cut until I get a good looking shaving.

A heavier cut should be more prone to tear out, but it is outweighed by a more optimal chip breaker setting.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Unless you want absolutely minimal amount taken off, an alternative to nailing the chip breaker dimension is to set it close and dial in the shaving. Eventually you will hit a combination that will work to shoot the shaving up and out.

Serious question for the gurus. What is the benefit of the shavings "shooting straight out"? Sometimes they come straight out, sometimes they roll up like Egyptian scrolls, and I have never noticed a huge difference in the surface.

[Patrick Chase]

Serious question for the gurus. What is the benefit of the shavings "shooting straight out"? Sometimes they come straight out, sometimes they roll up like Egyptian scrolls, and I have never noticed a huge difference in the surface.

Straight up is a sufficient but not necessary indicator that you've "broken" the shaving. In other words, if the shaving comes out straight then you know you've achieved a type-2 shaving (hence "sufficient"). If it comes out curly then you have to look at other indicators such as surface quality to figure out what's going on (hence "not necessary").

If you look at the infamous Kato/Kawai video you'll see that their shavings curled in basically all configurations, so clearly you can get good tearout mitigation without a straight shaving.

I think the big variable here is thickness - if the shaving is too thin then it will tend to curl no matter what.

[Allan Speers]

I almost brought the same point up earlier, but thought it would be a bit obscure for the forum. If you look at the size/composition of the groups that performed Baroque music (small) and the venues in which it was performed (also small) it's vastly different from common practice today. There are many chamber groups that strive to recreate "authentic" Baroque performances with varying degrees of success. It's worth checking out if you're at all interested (unless they're messing with alternative tunings and you have absolute pitch as I do. Anything other than A440 hz is like nails on chalkboard for me).

As George says, the reputation of the Italian makers grew quite a bit over the centuries because the music changed in a way that favored their attributes. The relatively "assertive" tone of the Strads etc was better suited to concert halls...

FWIW, no even THAT is correct. While a Strad was indeed louder & brighter than, say, an Amati, (or an earlier baroque violin) almost no Strad or Del Gesu exists today in it's original, complete form. Most had longer necks added, and the neck angle & relief changed, so as to get more volume and brightness than the original makers intended, even with these fine instruments.

However, I'm not sure exactly how they had heir chip breakers adjusted. :o

[Patrick Chase]

FWIW, no even THAT is correct. While a Strad was indeed louder & brighter than, say, an Amati, (or an earlier baroque violin) almost no Strad or Del Gesu exists today in it's original, complete form. Most had longer necks added, and the neck angle & relief changed, so as to get more volume and brightness than the original makers intended, even with these fine instruments.

However, I'm not sure exactly how they had heir chip breakers adjusted. :o

The context for that comment was a comparison to Stainer's violins - IIRC even an Amati in original condition would be considered bright compared to those.

I knew that basically all instruments that old have had "work done", but had no idea of the extent. Do you happen to know if the same is true for Cellos (my instrument) from that era?

[Kees Heiden]

Every shaving starts curly, but it is the combination of the chipbreaker, it's angle and position, the direction it shoots the shaving to AND the wall oposite of the blade that makes the shaving straight. But only when the shaving is slightly thicker, like others said, a very thin shaving remains curly. In a plane without a wear (the wall oposite of the blade) You get tight curls instead of longer shavings. And you can see this in the Kato video very well, they continue to roll up, but the radius of that curl depends on the chipbreaker setting.

BTW, there is another reason why a BD plane has advantages, other then the improved surface quality. Especially with thicker shavings, a plane with a tight set chipbreaker is easier to push then a similar plane with a high cutting angle. And in a plane with a lower cutting angle the blade is being pressed down in the wood by the shaving, something that is gradually lost with higher cutting angles. Those will start to feel like you have lost all clearance sooner.