Tight mouths in wooden double iron planes.

[Kees Heiden]

During my trials and tribulations on the planemaking front I happened upon a curious situation. I am making a coffin smoother right now and I had my fair share of troubles with a clogging mouth. I used a narrow piece of beech so I could determine easier where the clogging appeared: Shavings were jammed tight in between capiron and the wear of the plane allready on the very first few cm's cutting.

Let me put things in clear order.

I started with a mouth of 0.4 mm. Capiron angle is 45- 50 degrees. Bedding angle is 47.5 degrees, wear angle 75 degrees: Instant clogging.
I turned all my attention towards the capiron. It is now as smooth and polished and gap free as a capiron can be: Still instant clogging.
I cleaned up the wear, opening up the mouth in the mean time. The wear is now highly polished and smooth:
- With the capiron set a little further from the edge: Perfect performance. Thin and thick shavings.
- With the capiron set very close to the edge: Still instant clogging, especially with thin shavings.
I raised the wear angle to 80 degrees: Perfect performance, thin and thick shavings.

So in the end with a 1 mm wide mouth (almost 3/64"), a wear angle of 80 degrees, the capiron angle 45 - 50 degrees and bedding 47.5 degrees, finally a nice working plane.

332790

I think this is what happens. Shavings love to start with a tight curl. If there is no wear, the shaving keeps on curling and you get a tight roll instead of a long straight shaving. You can see this very well in the Kato video. The wear actually stops the curl from curling any tighter and moves the curl upwards, thus straightening out the shaving.

332791

I think there is critical mouth configuration in a wooden plane. Allthough there seems to be plenty of space with a 1mm mouth, you still get a constriction between the bulge of the capiron and the wear which is leaning towards the iron. When there is enough room for the curl to curl, below this constriction, then a clog is almost inevitable. Setting the capiron closer to the edge increases how strongly the shaving is directed towards the wear, thus increasing the problem. And it seems to be worse with lighter shavings, it also seems to be worse when you move the plane slowly over the board.

I couldn't test if a really very tight mouth (0.2 mm?) would prevent this from occuring (preventing the curl from appearing in the first place). But the constriction tightens quite a bit when you make the mouth smaller.

Of course, this was just one example, and I am still very much a beginning plane maker. But I wonder if other people have similar experiences, or maybe had completely different results.

[Oskar Sedell]

I had the exakt same problem with my first plane. Perfect shavings with the chipbreaker backed up a little, and total clogging with a fine CB setting. My smoother is based on a Hock blade, and its cap iron was not rounded at all when new.

I tried to solve the problem by opening up the wear angle, but wanted to keep the size of the mouth. This only worked halfway, and the mouth got a little bigger as well. Now it works very well and I think the solution was the combination of rounding and polishing the cap iron, and at the same time opening the wear angle a bit.

I also had the experience that thin shavings was more problematic than medium ones.

[Derek Cohen]

Good analysis, Kees.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

It's not like I am very original. In 1980 Akinori Yamashita investigated the same thing and came to the same conclusion. This one had sunk pretty deep in my conscious, but now I remember it again. I got this from Bill Tindal. Two illuminating pictures:

332792

332793

They had a bed angle of 40 degrees and a capiron angle of 50. As you can see, my experience is more or less the same. With a distance to the edge of 0.2 mm and a wear angle of 70 degrees, there is trouble with 0.5 and 1 mm wide mouths. That is more or less equal to my troubles. Tighter mouths don't really fit when the wear angle is less then 90 degrees. That's why in a Stanley plane this is less of a problem.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I don't know the answer yet, but I have been thinking about this a lot, and the timing of your post is helpful to me. The try plane I have has a bed at 47, wear at 77. The plans on the Caleb James site have a 55 bed, 70 wear. I watched some of the videos you mentioned on Sunday, and the angles there were still different (between 80 and 90 for the wear I think, with a similar bed to the try plane I have, which gives an almost 20 degree difference in the wear angle from one set of plans to another).

My first thoughts were that the wooden planes may be a very forgiving design, and I may end up with lots of useful wooden planes and not as much firewood. But I have also been turning over in my mind whether there is a "necessary" relationship between those angles and if so why, and I think you may be on to a possible reason for the variation.

It would be interesting if someone has a set of planes from the same maker to compare and see if the angles vary from smoother to jack to try or jointer. You could potentially open up a whole new line of argument for the next "did the ancients know about chipbreaker) thread.

ETA: I don't understand the autocorrect feature on this site (or maybe it is my iPad). It turned "chipbreaker" into "chip breaker smoking" and "a possible" into "apostle." And I swear, it changes things after I proof them.

[Kees Heiden]

I have calculated the mouth size from the descriptions in the Seaton Chest book. If the given numbers are correct (the size of the empty mouths and the thickness of the irons), then all those planes have a mouth around 1 mm. The jack is about 1.2, the smoother 0.9. Wear angles are closer to 90 degrees, if I remember correctly, the jack and smoother are 89, the try and jointer are 83 degrees. Bedding is 47.5 degrees for all of them.

[Stewie Simpson]

Kees; those figures on the wear angles are quite interesting; I am near ready to start work on a 7 inch, double iron smoothing plane, East Indian Rosewood body. The bed angle will be at 50*; 47 - 48* taking into account the taper of the iron ; a wear angle of 85*, at a wall height of 10mm ; and a mouth clearance of 1mm.

Stewie;

[Kees Heiden]

I'm sure that'll be a much better looking plane then mine :rolleyes:

Your values look like they will work perfectly well. 10mm wear height is a bit short in the traditional sence. They usually were about 1" high.

I have a boxwood smoother, that doesn't seem to have lost a lot in height. The mouth is more like 4 to 5 mm! :eek:

[Stewie Simpson]

Kees. When you consider you wont come across too many wooden bench planes that have lost more than a 1/4 inch of original wall height over their lifetime, is their any valid reason to start the wall height at 1 inch.

Stewie;

[Kees Heiden]

No. It's just how it looks from above. Traditional look is with a higher wear. I think that's all, no technical reason.

[Steve Voigt]

It's very possible to make the mouth pretty small, about 1/64", and still have a very close-set CB. Two things help. First, make the wear angle between 80°-90°. Second, make sure the shape of the cap iron is right. The curve of the cap starts about 1/2" from the edge and reaches a max of around 45°-50°. But the acceleration of this angle matters a lot. If it accelerates quickly and stays near 45° for most of the curve, clogging will be more likely. If the curve stays shallower at the beginning and then rapidly increases when it gets close to the edge,clogging is less likely.

Just a note on the history of wear angles. early double irons, like in the seaton chest, had steeper wear angles. In later planes, the angle is often much shallower, but the mouths are larger and always were. I think this was done to make it easier to make the planes with machines. I cant prove that, but it's a reasonable hypothesis.

[Kees Heiden]

Just curious Steve, do you make them with a 1/64 mouth (0.4 mm)?

I have measured several of my old planes, all Dutch from late19th century. The wear is indeed more like 75 degrees.

[Phil Mueller]

Thanks Kees for this timely post. I've laminated a new sole onto a double iron smoother and am experiencing jammed up shavings. Trying to decide if I need to open the mouth some more, move the chipbreaker back or what. This gave me some good info to consider.

[Steve Voigt]

No. It's just how it looks from above. Traditional look is with a higher wear. I think that's all, no technical reason.

The abutments need to end above the high point of the cap iron, say 5/8" above the sole. The wedge fingers should have a sharp taper that starts 1/4"-3/8" from their ends, so the abutments will have a matching taper. Add those numbers together to get 7/8" - 1". If the hard line the begins that sharp taper of the abutments is colinear with the top of the wear, it looks much cleaner. Her's an example of what I mean:
332797

[Kees Heiden]

Man, that's such a clean look! Sharp lines, spotless surfaces. I'm still a long way off to reach something like that. Hats off.

[Kees Heiden]

I made a quick sketch of the mouth (scale 1:10), as suggested by Steve. Wear angle 85, bedding 45, capiron leading edge at 45 for 1mm height. Mouth = 0.4 mm (1/64"). There is still a bit of a constriction, but that is inevitable when the wear is at 85 degrees and the cap + bedding is 90 degrees. But there is room enough for the shaving and it is very conceivable that the curl touches the wear before it curls downwards, thus the shaving is directed upwards.

Something to try on my next smoother.

332800

[Patrick Chase]

In your setup the chipbreaker face is pitched at 92.5-97.5 deg (bed angle + chipbreaker face angle). With a wear angle of 75 deg the mouth actually *narrows* quite substantially between the cutting edge and the chipbreaker. I suspect that what's actually happening is that there's enough room for a curl to form just above the edge, but not enough room to pass that curl through the "choke point" just above. I think this is what you were trying to describe in different words?

The obvious fix is to increase the wear angle as you did, though obviously that may cause other problems down the line.

The other potential fix (and one that I've personally had good luck with) is to make the highly-angled face of the cap iron as short as possible. If you look at the Kato-Kawai video closely you can see that the shaving is always hitting the cap iron's face within the first 0.1-0.2 mm. In my experience you can get good tearout mitigation with a face as short as 0.25 mm, though others (Derek) think that's way too small, so YMMV. I currently use <=0.5 mm faces on my own planes and they work well. Doing this mitigates the problem by reducing the amount of narrowing due to the wear angle.

More broadly, the conventional wisdom is that close-set cap irons and tight mouths don't mix, though there have been times where I've used both to great effect on difficult wood. IMO the keys to getting it to work are to keep the cap iron face short as described above, and keep the total cap iron face angle (bed + cap iron face) no larger or at least not much larger than the wear angle. That's why I say things like "total face angle of 90-95 deg" when people ask for advice instead of directly calling out the face angle itself - it depends on the bed angle and the plane's throat geometry.

[Patrick Chase]

I made a quick sketch of the mouth (scale 1:10), as suggested by Steve. Wear angle 85, bedding 45, capiron leading edge at 45 for 1mm height. Mouth = 0.4 mm (1/64"). There is still a bit of a constriction, but that is inevitable when the wear is at 85 degrees and the cap + bedding is 90 degrees. But there is room enough for the shaving and it is very conceivable that the curl touches the wear before it curls downwards, thus the shaving is directed upwards.

Something to try on my next smoother.

332800

The steepest part of the cap iron face looks way higher/taller than it needs to be here. I would reduce that to 0.5 mm or perhaps even less.

[Kees Heiden]

Exactly...

Of course one shouldn't forget, this is easy to draw on paper but actually pretty hard to execute in real life.

[Patrick Chase]

It's very possible to make the mouth pretty small, about 1/64", and still have a very close-set CB. Two things help. First, make the wear angle between 80°-90°. Second, make sure the shape of the cap iron is right. The curve of the cap starts about 1/2" from the edge and reaches a max of around 45°-50°. But the acceleration of this angle matters a lot. If it accelerates quickly and stays near 45° for most of the curve, clogging will be more likely. If the curve stays shallower at the beginning and then rapidly increases when it gets close to the edge,clogging is less likely.

What Steve says here is exactly what I was trying to describe in #17 - the steepest part of the cap iron doesn't need to be very tall to work, and making it
higher is a recipe for clogging. 0.5 mm is more than adequate, and 0.25 works.

[Steve Voigt]

Just curious Steve, do you make them with a 1/64 mouth (0.4 mm)?

I have measured several of my old planes, all Dutch from late19th century. The wear is indeed more like 75 degrees.

I've made them with a mouth of 1/64," and that works fine, but they usually end up between .020-.030 (for non-roughing planes, of course). I try not to be too hung up on it. :)

[Steve Voigt]

I made a quick sketch of the mouth (scale 1:10), as suggested by Steve. Wear angle 85, bedding 45, capiron leading edge at 45 for 1mm height. Mouth = 0.4 mm (1/64"). There is still a bit of a constriction, but that is inevitable when the wear is at 85 degrees and the cap + bedding is 90 degrees. But there is room enough for the shaving and it is very conceivable that the curl touches the wear before it curls downwards, thus the shaving is directed upwards.

Something to try on my next smoother.

332800

As Patrick indicated, the shape of your CB is almost the opposite of want you want. It is a subtle thing (visually), but small changes can make a big difference, because all the action is happening in a very small space.

(Btw, it was Dave Weaver who helped me figure that out in a way that was quantifiable and explainable. That happened quite recently. I was doing the right thing, but more or less on instinct. Being able to explain it makes it easier to repeat on a consistent basis.)

[Kees Heiden]

Yeah, that was a quick sketch. I don't really make them with a straight section, they end up much more rounded. But to be honest I didn't really pay too much attention to the exact shape of the capiron. So I thought, what the heck, lets try a picture. Here is my iron plus capiron flat on the bench. For reference put my 45 bevel square next to it. Then taking a picture though the magnifying glass.

So, in a 45 degree bedded plane with 90 degree wear, it would look like this. To me this doesn't look like a shaving trap causing capiron.

332888

[Patrick Chase]

Yeah, that was a quick sketch. I don't really make them with a straight section, they end up much more rounded. But to be honest I didn't really pay too much attention to the exact shape of the capiron. So I thought, what the heck, lets try a picture. Here is my iron plus capiron flat on the bench. For reference put my 45 bevel square next to it. Then taking a picture though the magnifying glass.

So, in a 45 degree bedded plane with 90 degree wear, it would look like this. To me this doesn't look like a shaving trap causing capiron.

332888

Nope, that's not a bad profile at all for your current configuration (85 deg wear angle and 45+45 = 90 deg cap iron face angle). If you thinned it out a bit more immediately behind the first ~0.5 mm of the face (i.e. reduce the radius of curvature of the part of the cap iron immediately behind the face) then that might allow you to either increase the bed angle (you started at 47.5 right?) or decrease the wear angle while still avoiding clogging.

There's a very delicate tradeoff here between continuity and clearance. Your current cap iron profile has very good continuity, and that's probably optimal for your current setup with relatively favorable angles (wear angle is only 5 deg less than cap iron face angle). In a setup with less favorable angles you might want to push the tradeoff more in the direction of "clearance".

My $0.02 FWIW...

[Steve Voigt]

Kees, that looks right to me.

[Kees Heiden]

Still this one caused me grieve with a 75 degree wear angle. Raising the wear angle to 79 cured the sick plane, but I am at 1 mm mouth now (0.04").

Never mind, it works now and the next one I'll start with a steeper wear angle.

[Patrick Chase]

Still this one caused me grieve with a 75 degree wear angle. Raising the wear angle to 79 cured the sick plane, but I am at 1 mm mouth now (0.04").

Never mind, it works now and the next one I'll start with a steeper wear angle.

Or you can inlay a piece of harder wood to tighten the mouth back up and claim you meant to do that all along...

[Kees Heiden]

If I may be so bold to offer some feedback. Your mouth is quite far to the front at 0.25 from the length. English practice was to put it at 0.3 from the front. And your abutment line is indeed clashing with the top of the wear. It would look better if tge wear were higher. And with a bedding angle of 50 degrees it gets tight eith a wear angle of 85. Unless you make the capiron very flat.

I don't really design. I look at a lot of old planes and the rest follows naturally. So you understand where I'm comming from.

[Derek Cohen]

I wonder what advantage there is with a smoother having a bed angle above 45 degrees if it uses a double iron? A lower cutting angle should produce a clearer finish. Bearing in mind that the lower the bed, and the more interlocked the grain, the greater commitment there must be to use the chipbreaker to control tearout.

Two views of a 50 degree bed: for one building a plane for others, it offers a range of choices (i.e. to use chipbreaker, or not). On the other hand, if the plane is for oneself, the choice of the 50 degree bed angle is wishy-washy (sitting on the fence, so to speak). When I chose the frogs to keep in my Veritas Custom planes, they were 40 degrees (#7) and 42 degrees (#4). This was a commitment to using the chipbreaker.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek. You may need to raise your personal concerns on higher angle frogs with Rob Lee.

regards Stewie;

[Patrick Chase]

I wonder what advantage there is with a smoother having a bed angle above 45 degrees if it uses a double iron? A lower cutting angle should produce a clearer finish. Bearing in mind that the lower the bed, and the more interlocked the grain, the greater commitment there must be to use the chipbreaker to control tearout.

Two views of a 50 degree bed: for one building a plane for others, it offers a range of choices (i.e. to use chipbreaker, or not). On the other hand, if the plane is for oneself, the choice of the 50 degree bed angle is wishy-washy (sitting on the fence, so to speak). When I chose the frogs to keep in my Veritas Custom planes, they were 40 degrees (#7) and 42 degrees (#4). This was a commitment to using the chipbreaker.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I don't think it's an either-or thing. Close-set cap irons and high bed angles mitigate tearout in slightly different way. I've seen pathological cases where I get small-scale tearout even with the cap iron set back by <8 mils (<0.2 mm). In those cases further increasing the bed angle helps.

I suspect that what may be happening in those instances is that the fiber-to-fiber bonds in the wood are so week in relation to the stiffness of the fibers that even a very short setback creates enough leverage to tear the shaving out ahead of the blade. High cutting angles address this by "breaking" the shaving (converting it to type 2) at the point of the cut instead of several mils up the blade back. The downside to that is of course that finish quality is compromised a bit.

[Derek Cohen]

I don't think it's an either-or thing. Close-set cap irons and high bed angles mitigate tearout in slightly different way. I've seen pathological cases where I get small-scale tearout even with the cap iron set back by <8 mils (<0.2 mm). In those cases further increasing the bed angle helps.

I suspect that what may be happening in those instances is that the fiber-to-fiber bonds in the wood are so week in relation to the stiffness of the fibers that even a very short setback creates enough leverage to tear the shaving out ahead of the blade. High cutting angles address this by "breaking" the shaving (converting it to type 2) at the point of the cut instead of several mils up the blade back. The downside to that is of course that finish quality is compromised a bit.

Past testing I completed (others have done the same) reveals that one can combine the chipbreaker and (a high) bed angle to achieve good results. Still, as you note, quality of surface can deteriorate (- which is a very relative statement) as the cutting angle increases. I have had superb results on hardwoods, such as Jarrah, using a high angle BU plane. I have had a better finish off a low angle Custom #4 plus chipbreaker on softer woods, such as Tasmanian Oak.

It is evident that one does not need to be black or white about the bed angle for certain woods. However, if one settles for one technique over the other (e.g. chipbreaker vs high cutting angle), then the plane design could include this (i.e. low bed for chipbreaker vs high angle bed without chipbreaker). It is not necessary to have both in one plane - unless you seek to offer choices (ala the Veritas Custom Planes). I did start with a 50 degree frog in the #4, and moved to the 42 degree frog when it became apparent that it worked better. I also continue to use a BUS at 62 degrees. It also works.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

I have claimed for years that the ideal bedding angle is somewhere around 40 degrees and that angles like 45 and 47.5 were used to give the craftsmen leeway to hone at higher or sloppier angles. Some craftsmen grind occasionally then gradually increase the honing angle over a period in order to speed honing, regrinding when the angle is too high. My experiments of forty years ago suggested that the clearance needed was in the 8 to 12 degree range.

One fellow used to claim that the clearance needed to be in the 20 degree range. I wondered about this for some time until I saw him sharpen on a video. He raises the iron so much on the fine stone that he is honing around 40 degrees. A lot of guys say "just raise the iron about one degree, but when you watch they lift about seven degrees.

I last had trouble with tear out in 1977. I would be suspicious of any claim that a high angle is needed.

The mouth opening on my beech double iron trying plane is 1.85 mm (just over 1/16). The mouth is essentially the same as when I started using it in 1979. The wear is around 80 degrees. Some years ago a fellow claimed that if I looked in the escapement I would see all the scars from years of jam ups. He was in fantasy land; I can't remember clogging.

[Kees Heiden]

All this talk about tight mouths is mostly about cosmetics. To be usefull against tearout the mouth must be in the sub 0.2 mm range. We are talking here about mouths 0.5 mm wide and (a lot) wider. Another thing is, the sole of the plane must really bear down on the wood in front of the mouth. Even the slightest concavity here stops the tight mouth of being effective.

A tightish mouth is helpfull to feel when the edge starts to poke through the mouth. That's usefull in use. And it makes it all a little easier to see when you peer down the sole to look at the projection of the edge.

[Phil Mueller]

All these angles aside, what is the "normal" mouth opening on the sole for a jointer...1/4", more/less?

[david charlesworth]

First question. I thought the cap iron effect did not require a small mouth, at all.

2nd. Why not reduce the steepest part of the cap iron to a mere 0.2 or 0.3 mm. A tiny bevel. Everything above this could be a lesser angle, assisting escape.

David Charlesworth

[Kees Heiden]

Yes David, we allready came to that conclusion, more or less

[david charlesworth]

Kees,

I think this demonstrates an advantage for the new improved L-N chipbreaker. Also used by Veritas, IBC & Woodriver/Quangsheng.

The bottom may be curved and a narrow strip, while the rest is low angle.

I think I have noticed that a lot of old heavyweight irons, some laminated, for wooden planes, tend to have rather low angle cap irons?

David

[Kees Heiden]

Nice thing about the old ones is the very gradual rounding. That looks great, and I just feel that it works a little better. But that's just supposition from me. Allthough the old ones look like they are very flat, they do tend to come out at 45 degrees right at the edge, unless some old joker made a mess of it of course.

In a Stanley plane I perfer the original stle, because of the springiness. But they sure do need a lot of work most of the time.

[david charlesworth]

Whatever work is done by the c/b to the shaving, happens within a very small distance. Less than 0.5 mm ?

David

[Warren Mickley]

Kees,

I think this demonstrates an advantage for the new improved L-N chipbreaker. Also used by Veritas, IBC & Woodriver/Quangsheng.

David

They all look to me like they were designed by people who had no idea how to use a double iron plane. Maybe they could design an "improved" boomerang and sell it to tourists.

[Patrick Chase]

First question. I thought the cap iron effect did not require a small mouth, at all.

2nd. Why not reduce the steepest part of the cap iron to a mere 0.2 or 0.3 mm. A tiny bevel. Everything above this could be a lesser angle, assisting escape.

David Charlesworth

Are you trolling the forum now? :-)

Seriously, your second question has been a topic of debate at least since I pointed out (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?226514-The-Veritas-Custom-Planes-more-than-a-review&p=2502441#post2502441) in one of my very first posts that the Kato-Kawai video shows the shavings deflecting within the first ~0.15 mm (and probably long before that - there is no such thing as a "new forum debate"). It was not favorably received.

FWIW I think that 0.25 mm is plenty, and 0.5 is overkill. It appears that Kees has landed on the same solution.

w.r.t. the first question I can only speak to why I've explored how small I can make the mouth while also using a close-set cap iron: I like to experiment, and one thing I like to experiment with is combinations of tearout control measures. The goal in this case is to see if adding a tight mouth enables me to (further) lower the cutting angle and thereby get a glassier surface. That's it, really. As with most experiments it's probably pointless, though I was pleasantly surprised at how low I could go with a properly shaped cap iron (<10 mils in some cases).

[david charlesworth]

Patrick,

I see no Norse supernatural being under the bridge!

I appreciate you comments about experiments. My own experience suggests tight mouth is the least effective method for reducing tearout. One of my planes has a 0.004" mouth. It works very well, but when faced with really nasty wood there is plenty of tearout.

Did I imagine that people were saying that c/b setting was good when the shavings went straight up?

Can anyone please direct me to the Kato Kawai video, preferably with subtitles, I can't find it anywhere.

best wishes,
David

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick,

I see no Norse supernatural being under the bridge!

I appreciate you comments about experiments. My own experience suggests tight mouth is the least effective method for reducing tearout. One of my planes has a 0.004" mouth. It works very well, but when faced with really nasty wood there is plenty of tearout.

Did I imagine that people were saying that c/b setting was good when the shavings went straight up?

Can anyone please direct me to the Kato Kawai video, preferably with subtitles, I can't find it anywhere.

best wishes,
David

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdk4uRYioZg. There used to be a version with English translations on Vimeo and linked from David Weaver's article at The Other Site, but it seems to be gone now (broken link). IMO it's pretty easy to interpret the raw video, particularly because they present a dimensioned drawing of each configuration before they show how it works. The trick is to use the dimension they give you (cap iron setback) to estimate everything else.

Based on the mechanics I suspect that close-set mouths may provide "tearout limitation" rather than "tearout prevention". If you think about what's happening when you plane with a tight mouth, you're relying on the sole to physically constrain the wood fibers so that they can't lift up ahead of the cut. The issue there is that you can't have a zero-width mouth, so it isn't possible to prevent them from lifting up at all. Unfortunately we don't have an equivalent of Kato-Kawai video with various mouth configurations so this is guesswork. I'm neglecting two big variables that I know of: The stiffness of the fibers themselves, which may prevent tearout beyond the mouth's edge. Also, the compressibility of the wood, which may allow tearout to propagate under the sole a little bit.

IMO a straight shaving merely indicates that the shaving has been "broken" (converted to type 2). It doesn't indicate whether it was broken close enough to the cut to prevent tearout. In my experience you can get micro-tearout (fuzzy surface) as in the 0.3 mm case from the video and still have a type 2 shaving.

[david charlesworth]

Thanks very much.

David

[Steve Voigt]

The subtitled version of Kato/Kawai was on Wilbur Pan's blog. He had a recent glitch that temporarily disabled all his video links (he explains here (http://giantcypress.net/post/140326160518/stupid-stupid-stupid#disqus_thread)). I imagine he'll have it up and running again in the near future.

[david charlesworth]

Thanks for the news.

Forgive me if this has already been said, but it seems to me that the best chance for shavings escaping from a narrow mouth, would be with small 80 degree c/b edge and a setting of 01 mm or 0.2 mm.

Having watched the Kawai- Kato video again, this condition seems to produce the straightest shavings. Has anyone tried this?

David Charlesworth

[Tom M King]

Here's the subtitled version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56DpxEOpxz0

[Phil Mueller]

I think my question got lost somewhere in this thread. Could someone tell me the actual dimension of the mouth opening in the sole on a double iron wooden jointer? Not the opening with the iron in place, but the opening as seen from the sole. I know it will vary, but even a general point of reference would be helpful in my restoration project.
Thank you!

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Phil, on my 22" wooden plane (I am calling it a try plane), the mouth is about 7/16. I don't have any way of knowing if that is close to the original opening or not.

[Warren Mickley]

My double iron trying plane is 22 inches and has an opening just under 3/8 (without iron). The Seaton chest trying plane, 22 inches, and jointer, 28 inches, have openings about 1/4 inch. They have the old thin irons. The thickness of the iron makes a big difference. You might make a full scale drawing.

[steven c newman]

22" long Ohio Tool Works plane..
333062
Usually, those shavings come up and wrap around my wrist. Bit of a pain to stop and shake them off my arm...

IF you want, I can go to the shop and measure the mouth opening..

The one in the attached thumbnail is a No.81, also 22" long.

[Patrick Chase]

I usually run at ~0.2 mm, but seldom push the total face angle (bed angle + cap-iron face angle) past 100 deg. That's enough to get pretty straight shavings, and going higher seems to cause very localized trapping/jamming. Of course I might be doing something totally wrong...

IIRC Kato/Kawai used a bed angle of 40 deg (too lazy to re-watch) so they would have needed a slightly higher cap iron face angle than would a common-pitch plane.

[steven c newman]

Mouth opening between the wood and the edge of the blade
333066
According to my handy-dandy ruler 4mm
Shavings from jointing the edge grain of a 3/4" wide board.
.333067
Iron is a tapered, Thistle Brand Auburn Tool co.. With matching chipbreaker.
It will do all the things my two Stanley No.7c, T-9 will do. weighs a bit less, though..

[Phil Mueller]

Thank you both. Gives me a good range. It's a fairly thick iron, and at about 1/4" it's just not enough. Didn't want to keep opening it without some guidance.

[Steve Voigt]

Kees,
As an addendum to this thread: Tonight I finished up a smoother and decided to test a little. After I got the sole reasonably flat, I set the cap iron as close as I could get it, set the depth for a light cut (I would guess around .002"), and tested with feeler gauges. I got .012" for the mouth. There was no clogging, and I strongly suspect the mouth could have been finer; I think the .2 mm (.008") you mentioned at the beginning of the thread ought to be possible. The bed was 47.5°, the wear 85°, and the cap iron had a very small 50°secondary bevel (eyeballing it, about a fat 1/64"); otherwise it had a curved shape like the cap iron you showed. I think those are the key variables that make it work.

[Stewie Simpson]

Its doubtful tight mouths have much role of a role to play on double irons planes, apart from looking the part. Putting that aside, I have finished making a jig to rip the wedges down to 12* x 140mm. I also need to make up a solid template to cut the outer wedge abutment lines. The front edge of the cap iron also needs some further work.

Stewie;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0124_zpskb1wgiwb.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0124_zpskb1wgiwb.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0125_zps5j2pipu8.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0125_zps5j2pipu8.jpg.html)

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks a lot for the updates, both Steve and Stewie.

On my newest plane builds I have choosen a higher wear angle. They are now about 83 degrees for a 45 degree bedded plane. I'll see how tight I can get the mouth. I am not quite there yet in my proficiancy in plane making.

A picture of the smoother, subject of this thread, at work:

333269

[Kees Heiden]

Stewie, on closer examination of your picture I see you increased the height of the wear! Good call.

BTW, I make my wedges more like 9 degrees. I measured the wedges in all my old planes and they vary between 7 and 9 degrees.

[Stewie Simpson]

Due to a fault within photobucket I have resubmitted the photo's I posted.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks a lot for the updates, both Steve and Stewie.

On my newest plane builds I have choosen a higher wear angle. They are now about 83 degrees for a 45 degree bedded plane. I'll see how tight I can get the mouth. I am not quite there yet in my proficiancy in plane making.

A picture of the smoother, subject of this thread, at work:

333269

Kees. You may find the following of interest in keeping the mouth opening tight.

Stewie;

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vehhLdQTMvE/TtOwQjC0vfI/AAAAAAAALY4/YotNkk8rN8c/s1600/kanna+2.jpg (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUgqiEu7LLAhXlIaYKHXm1B-oQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthecarpentryway.blogspot.com%2F20 11_11_01_archive.html&bvm=bv.116274245,d.dGY&psig=AFQjCNEaeq5wMKdrn771qL7ZGKj8HZO_Vw&ust=1457573318396267)

[Stewie Simpson]

Taking a break from other project work I took some time out to test the 12* wedge making jig. Before being passed through the table saw the wedge stock was secured in place with double sided tape. Final dimensioning was completed using a traditional wooden smoothing plane. The solid packing template for kerfing the outer wedge abutments was also completed.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0126_zpsmyc80gwz.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0126_zpsmyc80gwz.jpg.html)

[Kees Heiden]

Yes it is pretty obvious when you think about it, raising the wear angle without opening the mouth.

[Derek Cohen]

I did essentially the same thing on an infill to increase flow while retaining a 60 degree bed.


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheBreseSmallSmootherKit_html_708861dc.jpg


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheBreseSmallSmootherKit_html_m4334e104.jpg

Of course, I had to keep the hollow low as there was a 1/4" thick sole, which was also filed back from the vertical (I cannot recall the angle). I recall doing this with Stanley planes many years ago, having read one of David Charlesworth's articles in a magazine (before they were published in a book).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

BTW, you don't really need a jig to cut a wedge :D

333680

[Stewie Simpson]

Kees. I plan to repeat the same wedge profile on some future woodies, so that jig is going to come in handy. I have a bad habit of planning ahead with my project work.

[Kees Heiden]

I was just kidding. I am now working on my last two bench planes, a try and a jointer. I don't think I need more then 5 bench planes.

[Derek Cohen]

Taking a break from other project work I took some time out to test the 12* wedge making jig. Before being passed through the table saw the wedge stock was secured in place with double sided tape. Final dimensioning was completed using a traditional wooden smoothing plane. The solid packing template for kerfing the outer wedge abutments was also completed.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0126_zpsmyc80gwz.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0126_zpsmyc80gwz.jpg.html)

Doesn't the "jig" lie in the wrong direction to plane the wedge? Surely the wedge will slide out if you are planing with the grain? How else would you do this?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi Derek. The grain direction on the top surface of the wedge is running left to right (as seen within the photo). Relying on the side grain view to indicate the direction of top surface grain can be misleading due to the unique shape of the wedge.

Stewie;

[george wilson]

Kees. You may find the following of interest in keeping the mouth opening tight.

Stewie;

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vehhLdQTMvE/TtOwQjC0vfI/AAAAAAAALY4/YotNkk8rN8c/s1600/kanna+2.jpg (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUgqiEu7LLAhXlIaYKHXm1B-oQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthecarpentryway.blogspot.com%2F20 11_11_01_archive.html&bvm=bv.116274245,d.dGY&psig=AFQjCNEaeq5wMKdrn771qL7ZGKj8HZO_Vw&ust=1457573318396267)

stewie,I am suspicious as to where this picture came from. It shows an incorrect representation of the sole of the plane. Unless there is also a contact area right in front of the iron,this plane will soon be generating a convex surface on the wood it cuts. Just like a compass plane. I know who thinks this is correct as drawn,but it is not.

Also,since the angle that the iron rests upon will also be worn back as the sole wears,or is dressed repeatedly,the mouth will still be opened anyway,it seems to me. Maybe I am wrong? Dunno,late night,headache this A.M.!New pain meds are not pleasant. But I am not wrong about the needed configuration of the sole to have 3 contact points.

[Derek Cohen]

I think you are right, George. The plane (kanna) should be touching at three points - heel, mouth and toe. This is only touching at the heel and toe. Poor drawing?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

The deficiencies of that drawing were pointed out here as well;

http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.com/2011/11/smile-and-wave.html

[george wilson]

As I said,I'm suspicious of who made that drawing. If it is him,apparently he still does not understand how his specialty area,which includes Japanese planes,work. Or else it is an old drawing. Even the acknowledged master, Odate, shows a 3 point contact area on the soles of Japanese planes in diagrams in his book. At least in the book I SAW! (The link above shows only 2 points of contact.) Though I don't use Japanese planes(my back won't allow it),I,or anyone with a REASONABLE grasp of mechanics,can easily see that the 3rd. contact area,right in front of the throat,is needed,to keep the plane from becoming a compass plane.

Of course,that issue is not the subject under discussion here.

[Brian Holcombe]

George, he points out the drawing as being incorrect for a truing plane and mentions exactly what you did, which is that the two outside points and long hollow make a compass plane.

[Stewie Simpson]

The 1st stage of mortising out of the escarpment has commenced; from the blade bed to the wear line, working along the inside abutment lines. In effect forming 4 flat surfaces; front, back, and the 2 side walls that separate them.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0127_zpsw54cjtwm.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0127_zpsw54cjtwm.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0131_zpsg6hhqchh.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0131_zpsg6hhqchh.jpg.html)

The assortment of hand tools I am using. Right side of the planemaker floats is a Logier Sapphire Coated Luthier Rasp. Cut #11 on 1 face; Cut # 13 on the opposing face. Its the 1st opportunity I have had to use this rasp since I purchased it 12 months ago fro planemaking work. Its quite aggressive, but it leaves reasonably a smooth finish to the surface of the wood. Ideal for the flat bed surfaces you need to create when working on traditional wooden bench planes. Next to the Logier Rasp are 2 chalking templates I used to level off the flat surfaces formed after mortising. At a later stage the chalking technique will again be used to achieve a precise fit of the wooden wedge within its abutments.

imo, if you don't possess the correct temperament within your work, its best to avoid traditionally mortised out wooden bench planes. Steve Voigt and Kees may wish to add their own comment.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0130_zpscoak9meq.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0130_zpscoak9meq.jpg.html)

[Kees Heiden]

Interesting that you use a rasp for the bed, not a float. I only have one real float, a sidefloat from LN, great tool after I sharpened it. I tried to make some floats myself but wasn't very succesfull. Now I use the sidefloat for almost everything, also for the bed. But I can see how a bedfloat would be very usefull. Liogier also makes them, a bit thicker then the LN ones, so not so good when you want to make a single iron plane with a tight mouth and a 3 mm thick iron. I don't have a rasp like that but I do have one of these Japanese Iwasaki rasps, nice tool but completely useless for this job. Nice for smoothing out the wear and breast surface though.

I don't know about needing a special temperament to make these planes. I see it as just another woodworking project. Finicky stuff for sure, and my planes don't turn out too perfectly. I make plenty of small silly mistakes, but end up with very usefull planes anyway. It helps that I use these fat 19th century irons with capirons, that makes the whole process a little more forgiving.

Oh, and I am afraid that I am not patient enough for tight mouths. The jointer I am working on started out with a less then 0.5 mm mouth, combined with a 45 degree bed and 83 degree wear. Crap! Instant clogging again. So I thought to myself: #&%>$!. And I opened the mouth a little to slightly less then a mm. Now it works like I want a plane to work. I probably should have increased the wear angle, but like I said, no patience.

333845

[george wilson]

Stewie,you do nice,neat work.

Kees,developing patience is what good craftsmanship is all about. I have made projects that took a whole year of unremitting hard daily work.

[Kees Heiden]

I've got time until Eastern to finish my 5 bench planes. After that I promissed to start on the batchroom cabinet.

That and I am not the most patient man on the world. Striving for the perfect mouth while my planes work just as well (or even better) with a slightly wider one isn't quite my cup of tea.

[Patrick Chase]

I think you are right, George. The plane (kanna) should be touching at three points - heel, mouth and toe. This is only touching at the heel and toe. Poor drawing?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Don't some Japanese planes (smoothers?) have two contact points, one at the toe and one just forward of the blade? Either way that diagram is wrong, just checking my understanding.

Thx,

Patrick

[george wilson]

I don't remember,nor do I care that much about any Japanese tools,really. I don't see the point of scraping their bottoms into hollows,either. It probably is said to relieve friction. But,I think a larger surface like a Western style plane would have no more friction since the load is distributed over the entire sole,if the wood is flat. And,the high spots would soon wear and you'd have to re dress the sole of the Japanese plane.

I remember the old aluminum coffee pot we used to have,with the aluminum strainer at the top where you put the coffee. There was a long tube up the center of the pot. In the center of the strainer was a slip fitted tube about 1 1/2" long. I would sometimes spin the empty strainer,holding the long tube horizontal. It was amazing how long that strainer would keep spinning. It had a large contact area with a very lightly distributed load on it.

[Stewie Simpson]

The wedge abutments have been mortised out; next up is to form the recessed slot within the blade bed for the rear cap iron retainer bolt. When completed, that will allow the double iron to slide down to its full bedded depth.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0132_zpsijsc1kos.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0132_zpsijsc1kos.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0133_zpsdofomlwu.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0133_zpsdofomlwu.jpg.html)

[Patrick Chase]

The wedge abutments have been mortised out; next up is to form the recessed slot within the blade bed for the rear cap iron retainer bolt. When completed, that will allow the double iron to slide down to its full bedded depth.

Wow, that is some seriously precise work.

[Kees Heiden]

Ho ho, let's wait with praise until it is finished, still plenty of scope to mess it up :D

Joking, I've got all the confidence in Stewies ability to make a nice plane. I'm looking forward to the end result and I am especially curious how your experience with the tight mouth will be.

[Stewie Simpson]

Kees; its a double iron smoother; if the mouth clearance end up being close to 1mm then that's okay with me.

[Kees Heiden]

Then you are in the same boat as I am. And in the same boat as Benjamin Seaton too, all his planes have a mouth around 1mm. The jacks slightly more, the smoother just a little less.

[Stewie Simpson]

Kees; changing the subject slightly. This species of Indian Rosewood I am using for the plane stock is full of nasty interlocking grain. Too heavy a hand with the chisel across the grain and it could spell real disaster. Its been slow work with the floats and rasps with most of the mortising out. The wedge stock is straight grained Merbau.

[Brian Holcombe]

Nice work Stewie, and that Indian rosewood is gorgeous. The only Indian rosewood I've come across in that quality has always been in veneer form, nice to see that you have access to some heavy stock in that quality range.

The type I come across is always farm grown and leaves a lot to be desired.

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Brian; I purchased 10ft @ 4" x 4" DAR of East Indian Rosewood a few years ago for some plane making stock.

[Stewie Simpson]

Completed the recessed slot within the bed for the rear cap iron retainer bolt; I mentioned using a chalking technique to fine tune the fit of the wedge within its abutments. You want to end up with a chalk transfer mark showing full length on both abutments. This technique is not restricted to new plane builds, as it can be used on older wooden planes to validate the wedge fit. On a new build I would suggest you remove the top sharp corners formed on both abutments so as to avoid later fracture of these corners when freeing the wedge. No further progress till after the weekend.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0134_zpsvnxnncmz.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0134_zpsvnxnncmz.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0135_zpsy6ps62ax.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0135_zpsy6ps62ax.jpg.html)

[Mike Holbrook]

Steve Knight had an interesting way to make an adjustable/replacable mouth for wood planes. This is the mouth on a Jack I made from some parts I got from him.

334002

[Stewie Simpson]

Mike. Is that a laminated body on that plane.

[Kees Heiden]

That's a smart idea with the chalk. I'm going to try that too. I have been poking with a very thin feeler gauge to see where the fit is still lacking.

[Mike Holbrook]

Stewie,
The body of the plane was two halves from an 8/4 Purple Heart board, joined in the center of the width. Steve had just bought a CNC router and he "roughed" out the two sides via the machine. I just joined the two pieces and worked the resulting plane bed and mouth. The piece in the mouth came in a board (IPE), with screw mortises, that I cut out and worked to make them level/fit. That IPE is the toughest wood I have ever dealt with, it made the Purple Heart seem soft. It laughed at my belt sander... Steve was selling plane kits at the time.

Yes, I know it was/is like cheating. Steve was right about one thing though the Purple Heart in all the parts I bought has not "moved" or cracked anywhere. I don't think it would be pleasant trying to work those woods completely with hand tools. Those woods might be more in the same category of woods Derek works. Purple Heart tends to want to splinter vs cut.

[Stewie Simpson]

The front bevel that's leads to the wear has been completed; and the wedge has been shaped to its final form. The wedge was then tested for correct release from a single strike to back of the plane body with a wooden mallet. Excellent result.

Onwards to the next stage.


http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0136_zpso41f1tf7.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0136_zpso41f1tf7.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0137_zpsxcx7f1p9.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0137_zpsxcx7f1p9.jpg.html)

[Stewie Simpson]

The majority metal bench plane users would find traditional wooden plane making techniques a rather boring subject. It might be better if I just hold off and post photo's of the completed plane.

[Kees Heiden]

Don't worry Stewir, I don't find it boring at all! I am working on my last plane for the moment. I hope to be mostly done by Eastern. Things go a lot quicker and smoother then the first one, but I don't reach the quality of your work. Doesn't really matter, it is only for myself.

Just a comment, you often saw the top of the wedge reflecting the shape of the top of the iron. You might want to consider to round of the top of your wedge too.

[Kees Heiden]

Here are some pictures of the jointer I made. The wood is again not the most precious, it has some weird coloured stripes. But in real life it isn't too bad. I like the handle, it is modeled after a picture from the book about planemaker John Green from York.

334234

334235

334236

It has a steel strike button. I copied it from an old one like in this picture. Turned on the lathe, filed the square portions and hammered the head to give it some texture. I blackened the steel in the fire.

334237

[george wilson]

Interesting button,Kees. I never bothered to find out how those steel ones were put in.

[Kees Heiden]

The wood in the original one was charred, so they made a tapered hole and then burned it into the wood, just like with some chisels.

[Niels Cosman]

The majority metal bench plane users would find traditional wooden plane making techniques a rather boring subject. It might be better if I just hold off and post photo's of the completed plane.

Heck no! This is the most interesting thread going, keep it up!

[george wilson]

Kees,I am thinking your handle may break across the narrow necked down part. You should have made the grain angled as in making an open saw handle,to give that narrow area better strength.

[Kees Heiden]

Luckilly it isn't as thin as it looks like. In the middle it is rather thick, but strongly rounded over to the sides.

I'll see if I can orient the grain direction a little better on the next one, but I am working with very narrow boards so there isn't much room to tilt it over.

[Kees Heiden]

And here is, after some hard work, the finished body of my tryplane. I didn't get enough time to work on the handle yet. And I won't have much time next two weeks either.

I have been intrigued by the output of the professional planemakers from 200 years ago. I have been investigating that a little and came to the conclusion that they made between 3 and 8 planes a day! Probably not all bench planes, small molding planes are a lot less work when you have a mother plane to create the profile on the sole. But still, that is very good productivity. I timed myself on making this and it took me 10 hours. Add another 4 to 5 hours make a handle and mortise it into the body. I'm still a long way off...

334290

[Stewie Simpson]

Only 2 members have shown an interest in seeing this traditional plane build through to completion.

Not to worry. Onwards we go.

The sides of the escarpment have been flared back; the eyes done; the toothing marks have been flat sanded back to 220 grit; and both end grains of the plane body have been squared off.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0138_zpsddmps3wj.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0138_zpsddmps3wj.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0139_zpsfdgvvn17.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0139_zpsfdgvvn17.jpg.html)

[Mike Holbrook]

I am interested too Stewie. I may try adapting the wood planes I have for double irons and want to build wood planes from solid wood as well. I have already discovered the challenge of making a wedge that functions well in a wood plane.

[Stewie Simpson]

That's good to hear Mike.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Only 2 members have shown an interest in seeing this traditional plane build through to completion.

Not to worry. Onwards we go.


Stewie, I think lots of folks are interested. Some of us have to work for a living and that gets in the way of following things on a daily basis.

[Stewie Simpson]

Nicholas. Its good to hear there's been some greater interest out there.

Stewie;

[Paul Saffold]

Keep it coming, Stewie. I've enjoyed all of your builds. Much of your details about fitting parts and methods applies to non-plane making projects, too.

Paul

[Pat Barry]

Stewie and Kees, Thanks for giving us the blow by blow descriptions, discussion, and the images. I too find it very interesting even though I have never tried to do something like this. Maybe someday when I learn enough from threads such as this. As far as interest goes, I'm sure its very high as guys always like to watch others do work. ;)

[george wilson]

Stewie,I and Derek (he mentioned it) have had the same problem: Lots of views and very few comments left. Don't feel bad about it. It's just the way it is,apparently. I have followed this thread with interest myself,in spite of having made so many wooden planes. It's still interesting to see how others do it.

[Robert McNaull]

I have been following regularly. I tend not to comment if I have nothing of value to add to the conversation as the work many of you do is well beyond my current skill set. I do appreciate the time it takes to document and share builds and ought to offer words of praise more often. With that, thanks for sharing the builds!

Additional note, I also enjoy the critiquing that goes on in these threads on methods, techniques, and design. They provide a lot of insight on how to get the same results through different processes and the design details that I never think about like George asking about the grain direction of the handle.

Bob

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Stewie,I and Derek (he mentioned it) have had the same problem: Lots of views and very few comments left. Don't feel bad about it. It's just the way it is,apparently.

That is a fair point. I have often not commented on a thread because I thought I had nothing significant to add, and simply did not want to "clutter" things. I had not considered the need for "feedback" by the posters as to whether what they are sharing is helpful or interesting.

[Patrick Chase]

The majority metal bench plane users would find traditional wooden plane making techniques a rather boring subject. It might be better if I just hold off and post photo's of the completed plane.

I've been lurking this thread. Consider me awed into silence...

[Jeff Heath]

Only 2 members have shown an interest in seeing this traditional plane build through to completion.

Not to worry. Onwards we go.



I just wanted to add what others have already said. I don't post much, because I don't have much to add, but I've followed this thread since the onset. I have probably made close to 100 wood planes, and have now stopped, because, quite honestly, I make a helluva lot more money doing other things. I, too, am in awe of how, back in the day, planemakers were cranking out planes at a remarkable pace. I can't do that, plane (sorry for the pun) and simple. Best I've gotten a try plane with a proper handle down to is 1 per day. That just sucks, imho, and not profitable. I've sold all I've made, except the one's I keep for myself, and I enjoy reading and watching you guys "working it out." Many ways to skin the cat.

Nice work, btw, on all fronts.

[Kees Heiden]

That sounds like a story Jeff! Do you happen to have some pictures?

[James Waldron]

Lurking, learning, admiring. Keep it up, guys!

[Derek Cohen]

The majority metal bench plane users would find traditional wooden plane making techniques a rather boring subject. It might be better if I just hold off and post photo's of the completed plane.

Speaking for myself Stewie ... you do very good work, and your photos are clear and communicate well ... however I find the speed of your work to be excruciating slow. For a plane, I would prefer an entire build in a single post. And not a micro step in each. By the time you have done this several times, and hardly any progress has been made, I am bored and may return a week or two later. Perhaps I am too impatient. However I posted a plough plane build in a single post, having contained myself until it was done. My furniture builds extend over a number of posts, but they include multiple steps in sections or stages of build (Brian does this as well). So, I am looking forward to more, but please move on with it.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

So, I am looking forward to more, but please move on with it.

Derek. With severe arthritis pain in my neck and lower back I am no longer able to work beyond 2 to 3 hours in the workshop nowadays. I could deal with that reality in 2 ways. I could choose to give away woodworking for good, or I could accept those restrictions. While my body allows me too I have chosen to do the later. I make no apology if the lack of pace within my work is beginning to irk you.

Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Stewie

I am sorry to hear that you have lower back and neck pain. I went through this a while ago, so understand how debilitating it can be.

I think that you misunderstood me. I did not say work faster. I wrote that micro posts are too slow and I become bored with this method. Rather complete the whole build - at your pace. There is no rush from our side - and then post the whole lot in one hit. It is not as though there will be more than a dozen pictures.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Completed the profiling on the plane body ready for final sanding; applied way too much pressure on the hydraulic press to transfer the makers mark to the front of the plane body causing a split down the centre of the plane body. Quite annoyed at myself at the present moment. I wont be attempting to glue the body back together again. It going straight in the scrap bin minus the wedge that can be recycled.

Stewie;


http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0141_zpsnogol0ox.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0141_zpsnogol0ox.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0142_zpsm6ds7u93.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0142_zpsm6ds7u93.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0143_zpsjwyervot.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/7%20inch%20smoothing%20plane/_DSC0143_zpsjwyervot.jpg.html)

[Pat Barry]

That's a total kick in the gut. Sorry Stewie

[Robert McNaull]

Ugh, condolences.

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Pat & Robert. I should have trialled a test piece on end grain to determine the correct pressure to apply.

Lesson learnt.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo&index=1&list=RDjHPOzQzk9Qo

[James Waldron]

I can't agree that your posts are boring, Stewie. Perhaps Derek is just too skilled for patience. I find each step or your work worth a careful look - and sometimes a longer look - to fully (he says, full of hubris) fully understand the evolution of the work. If your work is slower than some might wish, that makes sure that the rest of us have time for digestion and contemplation. Keep it going. We can't wait for the work to be finished so you can batch the build in one swell foop. We might gloss over some "detail" and miss important points. Watching you guys work improves my work.

Sorry about the split. Endeavor to persevere.

[Allan Speers]

Man, Stewie, that's horrible.


But in the spirit of your Python link, at least you've come up with an explanation for that age-old mystery:

Why the stamps on so many woodies are so bloody hard to read!

[Kees Heiden]

Ouch. That's one of these sucky moments. Sorry about that.

[Patrick Chase]

Ouch. That's rough.

[george wilson]

I am not aware of how hard your Australian wood is,or how easily it can shatter. On Beech wood planes,Jon and I proposed to soak the front end of the plane thoroughly in water before stamping. This may or may not work with your wood,but it does help make a softer wood like beech easier to stamp.

In the 18th. C.,they used those stamps that were rather like a postage stamp with the serrated edges. The name was deeply engraved into the face of the stamp. The whole surface of the stamp would be forced into the wood. I have seen them struck about 1/32" into the wood! THAT takes a LOT of force,and no doubt the makers were just using a large hammer to strike them. Softening the front end of the planes with water,or better,HOT water might have been how they accomplished this. I have wondered myself how they kept from caving in the front of normal bench planes,especially coffin smoothers,where there is only a short distance between the front of the plane and the escapement. It is amazing how much force must have been needed to stamp this deep,where you have to push all that wood down into the front end of the plane body.

It is also possible that,along with the soaking,plane makers might have stamped their planes BEFORE they cut the escapement. Possibly even before they cut the coffin shape on the sides of the planes. This certainly would have prevented the plane from splitting.

Since I have never seen any evidence of soaking with water on finished 18th. C. planes(No water marks left on the wood bodies), I'm leaning towards the possibility that the makers stamped their planes BEFORE shaping the bodies. OR,that they stamped the plane blanks while the wood was STILL GREEN. It would have been MUCH more possible to stamp deeply when the wood was still green,and it would not distort,warp,etc on the end grain while it dried. After stamping,the makers would have had to put up their billets and wait at least 4 years before making the finished plane. But,for a professional plane maker who was making a lot of planes,this would be a definite possibility. After all,they had to wait for the wood to dry anyway,as they didn't have wood drying kilns back then. They had to plan for the future back then,and could not just go buy ready dried wood like we can. I think they had piles of wood on hand in various stages of drying. As they used the dry wood,they added to the supply of green wood to keep their businesses going.

All this is pure conjecture on my part,but I have tried whacking 18th. C. style stamps into end grain beech,and getting only a SLIGHT mark,even when using a 3# hammer with all my force. I'm afraid this is another piece of lost know how from the old days when men knew how to get around obstacles with simple technology.

Your stamp is small potatoes compared to whacking a flat faced postage stamp type stamp deep into the wood. So,I suggest AT LEAST stamping your stamp into the BLANK plane body before you do any more work to it. You can easily destroy the finished plane with your name on it if it doesn't come out perfect.

[Paul Saffold]

Hi Stewie

........ I wrote that micro posts are too slow and I become bored with this method. .................

Regards from Perth

Derek

Not everyone feels this way, Derek. Just like we all choose differing methods to approach our woodworking, the same applies to writing our post. I suspect there isn't a single person on this forum who worries if you might be bored reading their post. Too few of the members here post as it is and nitpicking like yours certainly doesn't encourage the timid or reluctant poster and might discourage those with obivous skills like Stewie from taking their valuable time to post their methods.

Paul

[Derek Cohen]

Not everyone feels this way, Derek. Just like we all choose differing methods to approach our woodworking, the same applies to writing our post. I suspect there isn't a single person on this forum who worries if you might be bored reading their post. Too few of the members here post as it is and nitpicking like yours certainly doesn't encourage the timid or reluctant poster and might discourage those with obivous skills like Stewie from taking their valuable time to post their methods.

Paul

Paul, why do you quote me out of context? I wrote ..

.... I did not say work faster. I wrote that micro posts are too slow and I become bored with this method. Rather complete the whole build - at your pace. There is no rush from our side - and then post the whole lot in one hit. It is not as though there will be more than a dozen pictures.

Everyone I know who posts a WIP offers up a stage with a progression with several pictures (with furniture builds), or a complete build (with progressive pictures) if it is a tool.

Stewie wanted to know why there were so few, if any, posters to his tool build threads. I have explained how I feel about his process. That is not a right or wrong answer - it is just how I feel about how he goes about it. Disagree or agree - that is up to you. Just do not make me sound like I was making a personal criticism.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Paul, why do you quote me out of context? I wrote ..

.... I did not say work faster. I wrote that micro posts are too slow and I become bored with this method. Rather complete the whole build - at your pace. There is no rush from our side - and then post the whole lot in one hit. It is not as though there will be more than a dozen pictures.

Everyone I know who posts a WIP offers up a stage with a progression with several pictures (with furniture builds), or a complete build (with progressive pictures) if it is a tool.

Stewie wanted to know why there were so few, if any, posters to his tool build threads. I have explained how I feel about his process. That is not a right or wrong answer - it is just how I feel about how he goes about it. Disagree or agree - that is up to you. Just do not make me sound like I was making a personal criticism.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I think a cooling-off period may be in order.

One often draws the wrong sort of attention when one is perceived to have criticized somebody right before something really unfortunate happens to that person, and I would personally interpret Paul's comment in that light. I bet he wouldn't have replied like that if you hadn't said what you did right before Stewie's stamping disaster. Sh*tty luck all around (though mostly for Stewie).

FWIW, I didn't see your post as critical at all: Stewie asked how he could improve response/interaction, and you gave an honest answer.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Steve, thats really sad to see nice work like that go to the bin.
What about heating the stamp and just burn the markers mark into the wood ?

[Niels Cosman]

Completed the profiling on the plane body ready for final sanding; applied way too much pressure on the hydraulic press to transfer the makers mark to the front of the plane body causing a split down the centre of the plane body. Quite annoyed at myself at the present moment. I wont be attempting to glue the body back together again. It going straight in the scrap bin minus the wedge that can be recycled.

Stewie;


Aww crap! Sorry Stewie!
We've all been there before! It's not a completely loss if you chalk it up as an opportunity for learning. I know that a lot of us have been reading this thread with great interest and learning as you go through the process.
I have worked extensively with glass for the past 16 years, which is perhaps the least forgiving material there is.
Making glass it is as much about learning how to do something as how do something without breaking it. The entire process is fraught with perils.
There are definitely some lessons about mindfulness and impermanence, that have been accompanied by shattered glass and a stiff kick in the pants.
Your next plane will be better for your efforts. I am looking forward to seeing it!

[Jeff Heath]

Stewie

This is no consolation, but it happened to me twice. Once, I split a Bubinga smoother just like yours, and another time, a glancing blow off my stamp resulted in my 5 lb.er smashing a corner of the plane, breaking off a small chunk, rendering it as firewood in both cases.

I have had no success in getting my makers stamp to leave more than just a light impression in the harder, more exotic woods that I've made planes from. The last plane I built, made from locust, is so hard that I can't even make a dent.

Though not traditional, I've given serious thought to burning my mark in. Many traditionalists, perhaps even George, would be aghast at this thought (not speaking for you, George, just guessing) but I believe it's better to leave a mark of some sort, rather than sending off my work without any lasting knowledge of who made it. An orphan, so to speak.....

I feel your pain and suffering through personal experience, and hope that you will get right back at it.



Derek.....be nice, buddy.:):D Having been around your internet presence for close to 15 years now, I believe I knew exactly what you were trying to say regarding posting all at once vs. bits and pieces at a time. Problem is, not everyone knows your writing style and thought process as well. Everybody needs to just chill and keep this very good thread on course. I won't comment on that subject again....

Cheers!

[Brian Holcombe]

Stewie, your use of wonderful indian rosewood inspired me to drag out the remaining indian rosewood stock I had an put it to use, building that humidor I had posted. Ironically, I also turned it into firewood today....so I know exactly how you feel.

My next thread will be on the walnut humidor I'm making....sigh.

[george wilson]

I could not burn in my brand on planes intended for use in the Historic Area,but there is no reason you can't mark your own planes in whatever fashion you like. Done well,it could be attractive. But,it will ruin the temper of your stamp,so you can only henceforth use it for branding,unless you have the knowledge to re harden it and temper it.

[Jeff Heath]

I would truly love to know how to stamp a plane with a maker's mark when the plane is made out of really dense, hard species. Did they make stamps one letter at a time, and go at it in small increments. I mean, heck.....I'm a rather large, strong human being at 6'2", and 270 lbs. of ex hockey and football player. I cannot hit my stamp hard enough to leave a full mark no matter what, on woods like locust or osage. I have smacked the living crap out of it with a big, big sledge hammer, and all I was able to accomplish was destroying 2 perfectly made planes.

I've seen pictures of ebony planes with maker's marks on them. Any clue how this was accomplished?

I've had no problems in planes made of beech, white maple, or apple.

If I were to go the burned-in branding route, I would have a separate stamp made up specifically for branding. I have one already for furniture that I've been using for 20 plus years. I would need a properly sized, much smaller one for the end of a plane.

[Derek Cohen]

I have two name stamps. The first was referred to as a "Makers" stamp, and the second as a "Owners" stamp. I do not know if these descriptions are accurate, or someone's invention. They are different, both in looks and ease of use.

The first, the Makers Stamp, is the one George referred to (and Stewie used), in that it compressed a large amount of end grain. I know it does it, because it came with a sample ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Name%20stamp/B1_zpsc5c34dd4.jpg

My attempts (into pine) were no where as good ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Name%20stamp/B2_zps147f61cc.jpg

I really struggled to get this going. It does not work on face grain, although easier to embed. Detail is lost. Later, I read a description (I think it was from Matt Bickford) that the process requires several hammer blows, and not one.

I decided to pass on this stamp. It was too much effort, and I was concerned of the damage on delicate tools - it was not simply for existing tools I had built, but there were those that I could make for sale (knives, router and bench planes).

Then George put me on to Buckeye. They made the "sellers" stamp. This created an different imprint using raised lettering. They could copy script, and so I sent them a signature to use ...


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Name%20stamp/B5_zps9c7dcb63.jpg

... and it works just as well on face grain - all will just a gentle tap of the hammer ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Name%20stamp/B7_zpsa615b9de.jpg

This did come up for discussion a while back when Stewie was asking about name stamps.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Holbrook]

Derek, I tried a search for "Buckeye Sellers Mark" and came up with Realestate sales people....any other hints, without getting you in trouble with SMC?

Sorry about your plane Stewie!

Questions about the main points in this thread

I have been reading and rereading this thread, or parts of it. It sounds like the general consensus is that tight mouths are not necessary for those who are using a well placed chip breaker. Although Kees does point out that having a reasonably tight mouth may help one visually orient ones blade in the plane body/mouth. I get this but, it seems that in the case of bevel down planes without chip breakers things get a little cloudier as we no longer have the "chip breaker effect". Here a tighter/adjustable mouth may help.... but the answer seems to have to do with the blades bevel angle. I am not sure of this though as I have had no luck addressing this. One might think that in the absence of a chip breaker the bevel on the bevel up plane blade ends up serving this function.

I also hear Warren and Derek suggesting that one can also achieve better results with a lower blade angle, 40-42 degrees maybe, at least in the case of bevel down planes with properly set chip breakers. Again it seems that the bevel up planes, lacking a chip breaker, may function better with a higher "final" blade angle (bed angle + the blade bevel or in some cases micro bevel)

The reason I bring the bevel up planes and single iron planes into this discussion is I, like many others, have a mixture of bevel up, bevel down and wood single iron planes. I fear that some may get confused, as I admit I have, from reading information pertaining to one of these types of planes and trying to apply it to types of planes where the information may not apply.

Knowing what we have apparently learned more recently about "the chip breaker effect" I am trying to apply this knowledge to which types of planes and blade bevel I use for which planing tasks. It seems logical for instance to use smoothing planes with chip breakers and specific bed angles as here we are looking for the smoothest finish. The single iron and bevel up planes may serve better for coarse and medium planing tasks as they may be easier to use. Although, I am sure many find their bevel up planes suit them well for final finishing particularly of end grain.

[george wilson]

Mike,the place is Buckeye Engraving. I have mentioned it several times here in the distant past,so I think it is o.k.. Great people to deal with. They can use any font you can come up with,and have your information stored in their computer so that you can order additional MATCHING stamps years later and they will perfectly match what size and style you ordered before. I did this when making the folding rules years after ordering my first stamps with just Jon and my own name. We got several other stamps that matched the first ones perfectly.

[Steve Voigt]

I am not an expert on stamps, but this is my understanding:
The first stamp Derek shows is usually called an embossed stamp. The second is called an incuse stamp. Embossed stamps were usually used by the planemaker, but this is a bit too much of a generalization; planemakers sometimes used incuse stamps as well.
For anyone having a hard time making a sufficient indent with an embossed stamp, the incuse stamp would be a better option, as Derek found. I know a planemaker, Dan Schwank, who uses an incuse stamp that looks terrific. He got his from Infinity stamps, and as George says Buckeye also does great work. I would choose the incuse stamp over branding.

George, do you know if Buckeye makes embossed stamps?

I use an embossed stamp. I place the plane on the ground, on a board to protect the floor. I clamp the plane to my bench leg to keep it from moving. I hit the stamp with a 5 lb brass hammer; the key is to hit it hard enough that you can an initial imprint, so you place the stamp back in the same place for successive blows. It takes a little practice to develop a feel for placing the stamp back in the exact same place--some of my earlier efforts were a bit blurry looking. It can take 4-6 blows to get a good mark.

Stewie, sorry about your plane. I scrapped a few myself; it is always a bummer.

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks George,
I remember the older thread. I did not want to miss getting that companies location in my bookmarks again.

[george wilson]

Buckeye will probably make any kind of stamp you want. The postage stamp type edge used by many early makers is easily done with a checkering file. Brownell's Gunsmithing sells them. They aren't very cheap,but as little as they get used,they'll last a lifetime. Mine are still like new,though they have seen a decent amount of use.

[Patrick Chase]

I have been reading and rereading this thread, or parts of it. It sounds like the general consensus is that tight mouths are not necessary for those who are using a well placed chip breaker. Although Kees does point out that having a reasonably tight mouth may help one visually orient ones blade in the plane body/mouth. I get this but, it seems that in the case of bevel down planes without chip breakers things get a little cloudier as we no longer have the "chip breaker effect". Here a tighter/adjustable mouth may help.... but the answer seems to have to do with the blades bevel angle. I am not sure of this though as I have had no luck addressing this. One might think that in the absence of a chip breaker the bevel on the bevel up plane blade ends up serving this function.

Close-set cap irons take a large toll in terms of planing effort, and a much smaller one in terms of surface quality (at any given cutting angle you can get a slightly "glassier" surface without a close-set cap iron than with). I historically like having the option to run with a tight mouth and a looser cap iron.

With that said I've (very) recently converted my custom 4-1/2 from a 55 deg frog to a 40 deg one (I also have a second #4-1/2 at 45 deg), and that leaves a VERY glassy surface even with the cap iron set close, so my preferences may be about to change.

[Derek Cohen]

For all those that asked, Buckeye: http://www.steelhandstamps.com/index.html

Hope this helps.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, I tried a search for "Buckeye Sellers Mark" and came up with Realestate sales people....any other hints, without getting you in trouble with SMC?

Sorry about your plane Stewie!

Questions about the main points in this thread

I have been reading and rereading this thread, or parts of it. It sounds like the general consensus is that tight mouths are not necessary for those who are using a well placed chip breaker. Although Kees does point out that having a reasonably tight mouth may help one visually orient ones blade in the plane body/mouth. I get this but, it seems that in the case of bevel down planes without chip breakers things get a little cloudier as we no longer have the "chip breaker effect". Here a tighter/adjustable mouth may help.... but the answer seems to have to do with the blades bevel angle. I am not sure of this though as I have had no luck addressing this. One might think that in the absence of a chip breaker the bevel on the bevel up plane blade ends up serving this function.

I also hear Warren and Derek suggesting that one can also achieve better results with a lower blade angle, 40-42 degrees maybe, at least in the case of bevel down planes with properly set chip breakers. Again it seems that the bevel up planes, lacking a chip breaker, may function better with a higher "final" blade angle (bed angle + the blade bevel or in some cases micro bevel)

The reason I bring the bevel up planes and single iron planes into this discussion is I, like many others, have a mixture of bevel up, bevel down and wood single iron planes. I fear that some may get confused, as I admit I have, from reading information pertaining to one of these types of planes and trying to apply it to types of planes where the information may not apply.

Knowing what we have apparently learned more recently about "the chip breaker effect" I am trying to apply this knowledge to which types of planes and blade bevel I use for which planing tasks. It seems logical for instance to use smoothing planes with chip breakers and specific bed angles as here we are looking for the smoothest finish. The single iron and bevel up planes may serve better for coarse and medium planing tasks as they may be easier to use. Although, I am sure many find their bevel up planes suit them well for final finishing particularly of end grain.

Hi Mike

A small mouth size is relevant for two purposes: As Kees noted, it is then easier to adjust the evenness of the blade projection with a fingertip (as an alternative to a visual check), and this is particularly the case when you set the blade for a very fine shaving. That was the reason I closed up the mouth on my#103. The second reason is that, with a plane used on bevels and edges, the blade in a small mouth does not catch without warning. I suppose there is a third reason, that is, a small mouth aids controlling tearout with a lower cutting angle. This is not a significant issue for the most part.

Both BU and BD planes with high cutting angles (greater than 55 degrees) are not affected by the size of the mouth. It could be the size of the Grand Canyon, and this will not cause tearout if the cutting angle is high. The issue here is that the high angle BD plane is noticeably (to me) harder to push than the equivalent BU plane. This is due in a large part to the low centre of gravity and low centre of effort of the BU plane. More forward thrust is converted into movement. Another factor is the width of the blade. If you are going high cutting angle on a BD plane, make it a narrow iron. Irons of 1 5/8" and 1 3/4" are my preference. This was one of the reasons I chose a LN #3 - which has a 1/3" wide blade - since it was paired with a 55 degree frog (now using a 45 degree frog with the chip breaker). I could go to the Veritas #4 Custom with a 2" wide blade because it has a 42 degree frog. These are about the same effort to push as a LV BUS (2 1/4" wide) with a 62 degree cutting angle.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

It helps to use a very small stamp. The antique Dutch planes were marked with very small stamps. About 1 x 0.5 cm. So I ordered something similar. I have no trouble to make very deep imprints in end grain beech.

[Warren Mickley]

Close-set cap irons take a large toll in terms of planing effort, and a much smaller one in terms of surface quality (at any given cutting angle you can get a slightly "glassier" surface without a close-set cap iron than with). I historically like having the option to run with a tight mouth and a looser cap iron.

With that said I've (very) recently converted my custom 4-1/2 from a 55 deg frog to a 40 deg one (I also have a second #4-1/2 at 45 deg), and that leaves a VERY glassy surface even with the cap iron set close, so my preferences may be about to change.

If the double iron plane takes noticeably more effort and fails to leave a better surface, there is something very wrong. It takes experience to know how to set up the cap iron.

[Patrick Chase]

If the double iron plane takes noticeably more effort and fails to leave a better surface, there is something very wrong. It takes experience to know how to set up the cap iron.

In cases where the close-set cap iron was not needed to begin with (straight grain in favorable direction), it is harder to push and leaves a "slight" (my wording from my post) difference in glassiness. I am far from the only person to have made this observation, including some who are well respected here. For those cases I like to use a plane with a tight mouth, because doing so limits the consequences (specifically depth of tearout) if I turn out to have misjudged the wood.

I think that the way you paraphrased me made it look like I made a stronger and more controversial statement about surface quality than I did (by discarding the modifiers "slightly" and "much smaller"). I similarly erred by not making it clear that I was specifically referring to the straight/favorable grain case.

EDIT: The last bit of my post (which Warren trimmed) acknowledged the obvious counterargument: If a close-set cap iron isn't needed to prevent tearout at a given cutting angle, then you have the option of improving surface quality by either increasing the set-back or decreasing the cutting angle. My comments about mouth size assumed the former, but I'm starting to think that lower angle is a better option. I know Derek has moved in that direction, and I think Warren has advocated for 40-42 deg BD planes?

[Stewie Simpson]

My comments about mouth size assumed the former, but I'm starting to think that lower angle is a better option. I know Derek has moved in that direction, and I think Warren has advocated for 40-42 deg BD planes?

http://homepages.sover.net/~nichael/nlc-wood/chapters/caop.html

It is apparent that the transition from a cutting to a splitting action would be delayed if the pitch were lowered, as the shaving would need less bending to get out of the way. However, the lower pitch requires a smaller angle between the face of the blade and the back. There is less steel in back of the edge to support it, and it would lose its keenness rapidly. Another factor is heat removal. A surprising amount of heat is generated by friction at the edge, and unless this is conducted away the temper is at risk. A small sharpening angle doesn't provide for good heat removal: a razor blade would not hold up well in a plane. The usual compromise puts the pitch angle at about 45 degrees.

[Warren Mickley]

Stewie, you may not have seen discussions of this topic on another forum over the last ten years. In 1976 I experimented with clearance angles and found that roughly 8-11 degrees of clearance was needed between the bevel and the sole of the plane. (On a bevel down plane the clearance equals the cutting angle minus the honing angle.) Since I hone my plane Irons at 30 degrees, full flat bevel, this puts a lower limit cutting angle at around 40 degrees for me. I have suggested that the 45 or 47.5 standard angles are made to give a cushion for those whose honing angles exceed 30 degrees. This cushion helps keep them out of clearance trouble. I have seen videos of well known bloggers etc who obviously hone closer to 40 than 30.

I bought my fifth of five total bench planes in 1983. The cutting angles of the five are 45, 45, 43, 43, 42. I can see the difference between the 45 and the 42 degree planes. The 42 degrees is very slightly cleaner cutting, but I am not sure it is enough to make a fuss about.

[Patrick Chase]

My comments about mouth size assumed the former, but I'm starting to think that lower angle is a better option. I know Derek has moved in that direction, and I think Warren has advocated for 40-42 deg BD planes?

http://homepages.sover.net/~nichael/nlc-wood/chapters/caop.html

It is apparent that the transition from a cutting to a splitting action would be delayed if the pitch were lowered, as the shaving would need less bending to get out of the way. However, the lower pitch requires a smaller angle between the face of the blade and the back. There is less steel in back of the edge to support it, and it would lose its keenness rapidly. Another factor is heat removal. A surprising amount of heat is generated by friction at the edge, and unless this is conducted away the temper is at risk. A small sharpening angle doesn't provide for good heat removal: a razor blade would not hold up well in a plane. The usual compromise puts the pitch angle at about 45 degrees.

Warren already addressed this but I'll chime in: I run almost all of my bench planes with <12 deg clearance angles. I typically use 10 deg on BD planes and ~11.75 on low-angle BU ones (12 deg bed angle minus ~0.25 deg from "10-mil-shim-stock trick"). I calculate clearance based on the as-honed tip angles (secondary bevel for BD, back bevel if any for BU), not the as-ground face angles. I've never had clearance issues with those angles, though I work exclusively in low-moisture-content hardwoods so YMMV (if you're working green pine :-).

For the sorts of cutting angles we're talking about here (40-45 deg in BD) the resulting tip angle is 30-35 deg, so I don't think that the issues your quotation raises are huge concerns.

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Warren. Appreciate your thoughts on this subject.

Stewie;

[steven c newman]

Re: to that split plane body.....seems I made something of a rebate plane from a piece of body...
334625
Perhaps a slimmer body, with a 1" wide iron like this one? Single iron, though......
Maybe turn the other half of the "split" into a fence?
334626
The hardest part was getting that wedge just right, so the shavings would curl right out the side.....unless,of course, you have already tossed out the offending two pieces....

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for the reply Derek. I have a clearer understanding of why the Veritas Custom with 42 degree frog seems to work well and maybe why the BUS (bevel up smoother) you tested with the combined 62 degree bevel tested similarly. Apparently not only were the results on the wood similar but the effort required to produce those results was similar too, good to know. Warren explains his reasoning for liking the 42 degree bed on BD (bevel down) planes above too, so I am clearing up on why this frog angle works well on BD planes. I ordered my Veritas #4 Custom plane with a 42 degree frog mostly on faith, now I understand the reasoning.

I am still a little cloudy on why thicker BU plane irons often come with 25 degree bevels and why Derek suggests 25 for BU planes vs what seems to have become the standard 30 degree bevels for thinner BD planes. Maybe the thicker blades are able to support a 25 degree bevel better and maybe the smaller angle is easier to make a micro bevel on? It also occurs to me that Warren’s experiments with optimal clearance angles might mean the smaller bevel angle works better with the smaller frog bed angle (25-12 is closer to 11)? Could a micro bevel on a BU plane serve a similar function to a chip breaker on a thinner BD plane? It would seem easier to grind 30 vs 25 bevels though and there would not seem to be a great difference in adding micro bevels to a 30 degree bevel.


The other factor that has me a little confused is how hollow ground plane blades function vs straight or convex blade bevels. I use hollow grinding because I find the resulting bevel to be much easier to maintain. The hollowed edge does have a little different angle that might be a significant enough difference to effect chip clearance? I am wondering if the micro bevel created by sharpening a hollow ground blade along the two edges the hollow makes could essentially function as a micro bevel/chip breaker on BU blades?

[Brian Holcombe]

Mike,

To make clearance angle a bit more intuitive you can think of it like this; when you are using a paring chisel on it's bevel, how high do you have to lift the blade until it starts to cut? If it's incredibly sharp, maybe only a few degrees, but as it wears you need to increase the angle to continue getting a cut out of it.

The same thing is happening with your plane, finding a practical angle, at which you can cut for some time before wear prevents it from starting a shaving. Take the bed angle and subtract the bevel angle and you have the angle at which the bevel is raised from the wood.

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks Brian, that does help explain all the partial information I have been trying to process in regard to the wear factor. I get a little confused because: the bottom of the plane in front of the mouth, both the front and back of the mouth itself, and the blade angle are all subject to varying degrees of wear and sometimes I am not sure exactly what people are referencing regarding wear & wear angels.

I have noted the marked wear on my #5 Stanley with the heavily cambered blade. Interestingly, the back/rear edge of my 30 degree hollow beveled Stanley blade seems to show more wear than the front bevel. Maybe with a blade cambered that much, cutting larger shavings, there is more contact with the wood surface along the back of the blade?

I am not sure if the formula mentioned by Brian above for calculating the angle the blade meets the wood at (the bed angle less the bevel angle) applies to BD,BU or both types of planes? It would seem to matter: what side of the blade the bevel is on, whether or not there is a micro bevel, whether or not a chip breaker is being used (and how close it is set) and whether or not the blade has a hollow grind.

[Brian Holcombe]

It applies only to bevel down planes. Bevel up planes have a clearance angle which is fixed by the bed angle, though you can reduce the clearance angle by adding a back bevel it would be ill advised.

[Patrick Chase]

It applies only to bevel down planes. Bevel up planes have a clearance angle which is fixed by the bed angle, though you can reduce the clearance angle by adding a back bevel it would be ill advised.

Depends on how much of a back-bevel. The ruler-trick is fundamentally a way of applying a back bevel, albeit a very controlled one. Charlseworth's original method applies a ~0.5 deg back bevel, and the way I do it (with 10 mil shim stock set back ~2.5" from the edge) applies a 0.25 deg bevel. Neither of those matters for clearance...

[Brian Holcombe]

That's true, I'm purposely generalizing just so that it is easier to understand the conversation at hand. Ruler trick aside, back bevels are a non-starter when you are working with 12 degrees of clearance.

[Mike Holbrook]

Ah, this uncovers another thread in understanding, I wasn't sure which side of the blade we were talking about either. Apparently Brian is referencing the under side of the blade and although that had occurred to me I was oriented more toward the top of the blade. Makes more sense working from the bottom of the blade. It is a little hard to illustrate/picture a three dimensional concept with/from two dimensional drawings, which is often what we have to look at.

[Patrick Chase]

Ah, this uncovers another thread in understanding, I wasn't sure which side of the blade we were talking about either. Apparently Brian is referencing the under side of the blade and although that had occurred to me I was oriented more toward the top of the blade. Makes more sense working from the bottom of the blade. It is a little hard to illustrate/picture a three dimensional concept with/from two dimensional drawings, which is often what we have to look at.

Different people have referred to both in this thread.

The thread is originally about a double-iron plane, which implies bevel-down. In that case the secondary bevel on the face is what matters for clearance. Brian responded to a tangent about BU planes, and on those the back bevel (if any) is what matters.

[Mike Holbrook]

I apologize for moving off topic. My objective was to qualify what we were and were not talking about. I think there is a tendency to generalize this type of discussion as being relevant to all planes when different types of planes often have different characteristics. It is easy to apply this type of information in the wrong context if we do not take the time to qualify specifically where it applies.

[Derek Cohen]

....

I am still a little cloudy on why thicker BU plane irons often come with 25 degree bevels and why Derek suggests 25 for BU planes vs what seems to have become the standard 30 degree bevels for thinner BD planes. Maybe the thicker blades are able to support a 25 degree bevel better and maybe the smaller angle is easier to make a micro bevel on? It also occurs to me that Warren’s experiments with optimal clearance angles might mean the smaller bevel angle works better with the smaller frog bed angle (25-12 is closer to 11)? Could a micro bevel on a BU plane serve a similar function to a chip breaker on a thinner BD plane? It would seem easier to grind 30 vs 25 bevels though and there would not seem to be a great difference in adding micro bevels to a 30 degree bevel.


The other factor that has me a little confused is how hollow ground plane blades function vs straight or convex blade bevels. I use hollow grinding because I find the resulting bevel to be much easier to maintain. The hollowed edge does have a little different angle that might be a significant enough difference to effect chip clearance? I am wondering if the micro bevel created by sharpening a hollow ground blade along the two edges the hollow makes could essentially function as a micro bevel/chip breaker on BU blades?

Hi Mike

The answer to the first question comes in two parts:

The 25 degree primary bevel for BU plane blades was something I evolved a goodly number of years ago now. It arose out of the challenge to more easily camber BU plane blades, especially those with high cutting angles, such as 38- and, particularly, 50 degrees. At that time, almost all users of LV bevel up planes would either turn to one of the 38- or 50 degree blades they sold. Achieving a camber on these, and especially the more extreme cambers used for a jack plane (such as a 8-9" radius), was a great deal of work. Cambers on BU planes need to be a little greater than on BD planes.

The idea was to only use a 25 degree primary bevel, and add the desired bevel angle via a micro secondary bevel (using a honing guide - needed as bevel angles on BU plane blades determine the cutting angle, and accuracy is more relevant now). What this did was to minimise the amount of steel needed to be removed to create a camber. It makes adding camber very easy to do. (Note that this does not invalidate the high angle blades sold by Lee Valley - they are appropriate for use is you prefer to use a straight blade. Some argue that they can achieve the same result by clipping the corners of the blades. I have never found this an effective method).

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

The second part of the question is whether there is a difference between a BU primary bevel at 25 degrees, and a BD primary bevel at 30 degrees. The answer to this is that (a) unless you are shooting end grain, where the bevel is 25 degrees, the rest of the time you will add a secondary bevel and the final angle will in fact be higher than 30 degrees for BU plane blades. And (b), the low vector of a BU plane blade creates less stress on the blade edge than that created on the higher BD blade edge. Tests I did on shooting boards, BU vs BD, revealed that the BU plane (with a 12 degree bed) far outlasted a BD plane (with a 45 degree bed).

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVShootingPlane.html

To answer your second question: If you are using a honing guide, it does not matter whether you start with a hollow or flat grind. All that counts is the angle of the secondary bevel. In terms of strength of the edge, over the course of several years, I never experienced any chipping on a 25 degree hollow grind on a LV LA Jack used to shoot hard wood end grain.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

The second part of the question is whether there is a difference between a BU primary bevel at 25 degrees, and a BD primary bevel at 30 degrees. The answer to this is that (a) unless you are shooting end grain, where the bevel is 25 degrees, the rest of the time you will add a secondary bevel and the final angle will in fact be higher than 30 degrees for BU plane blades.

I think this may understate the usefulness of 25-deg bevels on BU planes. They're certainly excellent for end grain (more on that below) but they also leave an ultra-glassy surface for other cuts IF (big if) the grain is cooperative.



And (b), the low vector of a BU plane blade creates less stress on the blade edge than that created on the higher BD blade edge. Tests I did on shooting boards, BU vs BD, revealed that the BU plane (with a 12 degree bed) far outlasted a BD plane (with a 45 degree bed).

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVShootingPlane.html


I read that article, and in fact it was the one that convinced me to buy the Veritas Shooting Plane. Thank you for the excellent review.

I think however that the results of your experiment are consistent with more than one explanation. The big uncontrolled variable was that the cutting angles weren't the same. You used a 45-deg cutting angle in the L-N 51, and a 37-deg cutting angle (12+25) in the Veritas. You therefore can't distinguish between the following possibilities:

1. The blade on the Veritas wore less because the lower cutting angle produces lower cutting stresses and therefore less blade wear

2. The blade on the Veritas wore less because of the "in-line force vector"

As an engineer my money is on (1). As much as I would love to geek out on force vectors as I did on a grinding thread a while back, I don't think that's what's happening here. Admittedly it's a bit of an academic point because there's no such thing as a 37-deg BD shooting plane, so if you want that long blade life the BU plane is the only way to get it, regardless of "why". That's why your experiment was convincing to me - the bottom-line answer was the same regardless of the interpretation.

Care to make a friendly wager and repeat the experiment with 33-deg bevels on both planes? (such that both have 45 deg cutting angle and 12 deg of relief, and any wear difference will be cleanly attributable to the blade orientation).

[Stewie Simpson]

The new stock for the 7 inch smoother plane body has been dimensioned to size. I also completed some tests on the hydraulic press using some hardwood end grain to determine a low pressure setting and achieve a clear impression of the makers stamp. That worked out to be 1 tonne. Unfortunately the attached photo doesn't clearly show the makers stamp on the planes front end grain. Thanks to George for suggesting this stamping take place much sooner within the plane build.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/2nd%20attempt%207%20inch%20smoother/_DSC0144_zpser51c58j.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/2nd%20attempt%207%20inch%20smoother/_DSC0144_zpser51c58j.jpg.html)

The next lot of photo's I post will be of the completed plane.

Stewie;

[Mike Holbrook]

It seems to me that the size of a planes mouth, the "clearance" angle, the bed angle, whether we use a chip breaker or not, whether the plane is bevel up (BU) or bevel down (BD), primary, secondary and in the case of BU planes combined bevel angles, whether we hollow grind, flat grind or use a secondary bevel....are all so interrelated it is hard to talk about one factor out of context.

It occurs to me that Patrick and I may be missing the point of research like Derek has done. Derek does research related to his own specific interests and specific tools he has reason to want to compare. By trying to apply that information to our own interests and tools we may find ourselves too far from the original context for meaningful comparisons. Patrick finds help in Dereke's research when he applies it to an exact tool, say a Veritas shooting plane, which Derek actually tested. I may find help in figuring out what frog I might want to order on a Veritas Custom #4 plane, which was also the subject of testing. When we start trying to extrapolate how this research may apply to BU planes other than those used in Derek's testing maybe we become to hypothetical to draw solid conclusions, and maybe we do a disservice to the research.

Thanks for the response Derek, I did find some of the answers I have been searching for. Now that I at least understand the pieces of the plane puzzle that were started in this thread I will start a new thread.

Sorry to have moved so far afield of your post Stewie. I got lost somewhere trying to figure out specifically what the discussion was about and where it applied. I have two 7- 7.5 inch (different bed angles) planes and a long Jointer/Try plane, from the same Purple Heart as the Jack I posted about earlier. I have not finished them up yet. I am stuck trying to decide whether or not to modify the original designs to work with blades with chip breakers. There has certainly been a great deal of interest in wood planes with double irons in the last couple years. So I am interested in what you are doing and how it may apply to my planes. I am starting a little research on 2" (all my Purple Heart planes use 2" irons) blades with chip breakers. Yours look very interesting. I have a 2" Veritas PM-V11 double iron blade which I use in metal Stanley planes at the moment. I am thinking about ordering a 2 1/4" Hock blade for a Stanley 5 1/2 to see if I like them as much as I like the PM-V11 blades. Veritas does not offer their double irons in 2 1/4. If I am going to modify any of my wood planes for chip breakers I guess I need to decide which ones to use first.

[James Waldron]

[snip]

If I am going to modify any of my wood planes for chip breakers I guess I need to decide which ones to use first.

I'd wonder if it might not be a LOT easier to make new planes than to convert existing ones. Am I missing something?

[Mike Holbrook]

I ask that question in a previous thread. I believe all I need is a recess for the nut that tightens the two irons, not so hard to add. That and a little work on the wedge. Not excited about making four new planes and having four planes I probably would not use.

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewie, you may not have seen discussions of this topic on another forum over the last ten years. In 1976 I experimented with clearance angles and found that roughly 8-11 degrees of clearance was needed between the bevel and the sole of the plane. (On a bevel down plane the clearance equals the cutting angle minus the honing angle.) Since I hone my plane Irons at 30 degrees, full flat bevel, this puts a lower limit cutting angle at around 40 degrees for me. I have suggested that the 45 or 47.5 standard angles are made to give a cushion for those whose honing angles exceed 30 degrees. This cushion helps keep them out of clearance trouble. I have seen videos of well known bloggers etc who obviously hone closer to 40 than 30.

I bought my fifth of five total bench planes in 1983. The cutting angles of the five are 45, 45, 43, 43, 42. I can see the difference between the 45 and the 42 degree planes. The 42 degrees is very slightly cleaner cutting, but I am not sure it is enough to make a fuss about.


Warren. The replacement 7 inch smoother I am currently working on has the double iron bedded at 40 degrees.

Looking forward to seeing it in action when its nearer to completion.

regards Stewie;