Flattening a white oak board

[Steve Voigt]

I've never made a video before. But in Kees "Elbows" thread (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?244553-Elbows), I was critical of Mr. Charlesworth's video, and I figure it's a bit unfair to criticize someone else without offering them the same opportunity. So, here's a video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS6rQB2UBUk

Warning: it's a bit long! Move on if you have something better to do with 17 minutes of your life!

I started a new thread because I'm not that interested in talking about just the mechanics of planing, out of context. At any rate, it was pretty well covered in the previous thread. I'd rather talk about actually doing something: flattening, thicknessing, tapering, whatever.

Feel free to criticize or whatever. I probably won't make a lot of changes in my approach, though. I did notice some things that could be improved, for example I tend to stand a little too far to the back of the board, but that's because most of my planing is done on shorter pieces, where that approach makes more sense.

At any rate, as Kees said, it is very helpful to videotape and watch yourself. It's also a huge pain in the ass, but nonetheless I'll probably try to do a few more.

Last, sorry for the quality, the stupid comments, and the compressed frame--like I said, it's my first try.

EDIT: just one pre-emptive comment. Towards the end of the video, if it looks like there are giant gaps under the closest winding stick--there aren't! That's just some worn-away spots on the face of the stick that are lighter in color than the rest. I promise. :rolleyes:

[Kees Heiden]

Nice punch in your planing technique, like Luke just explained in the "how to plane" thread.

[Brian Holcombe]

Looks good Steve, I like the look of your shop as well.

You capture the essence of handtool woodworking....stopping for tea mid-procedure. :D

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I had not thought about using shims. I usually put the other side down to start when I am dealing with a cup.

Nick

[Steve Voigt]

Thanks, Kees and Brian.

I uploaded another video, on jointing an edge:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZRBAnTSmY&feature=youtu.be

This one is a little ridiculous. I made the videos twice (I thought) but they both disappeared into the cell phone Bermuda triangle. Which was too bad, because I really wanted to show jointing a rough edge, as opposed to one that was tablesawn or power jointed. So I messed up the edge on the bandsaw (I should've used a drawknife, but I didn't think of that), made it way worse than a typical handsawn edge. That was effective for demonstrating heavy stock removal, but it's longer than it needs to be. Oh well. At least this time the cell phone is turned the right way.

[Brian Holcombe]

That looks pretty good, thats similar to how I joint wide edges. Here's a fun one, I blasted 1/4" off of this thin stock. This is something I run into all the time when working up small pieces.

Hope you dont mind me posting up here, it's in a similar...kinda...vein.


https://youtu.be/TKRt1WILBbc

The shavings are thicker than commercial veneer.

[Steve Voigt]

Brian,
Of course I don't mind! I hope more videos will be posted. The only thing I'm hoping for is that we move off of pure mechanics and look at planing in context of actually doing something. Your vid is a great reminder that there are lots of different contexts in which we plane. The part I really like is after you back off the depth of cut, the plane stops cutting in the middle because the work is no longer flexing in the middle under the pressure of a heavy cut. It also appears to me that you are deliberately trying to take pressure off the middle as you push through the cut. Which is the opposite of what we do in "normal" planing. Subtle variations of pressure, direction, and skew are what make it possible to achieve good results in difficult situations.

[Mike Holbrook]

I am trying to figure out how you guys are taking these videos? Phones have become so good at taking pictures, I use mine for most of my pictures. There are also all sorts of small sports/helmet cams people use these days. I agree that watching a video helps one see what one is really doing instead of what we think we are doing. I have reason to want to photograph other peoples and animals form during another physical activity as well.

Steve, in the context of actually doing work, I am wondering what kind of camber, if any, you have on the plane(s) you are using? I am all about learning to do the work faster. I think I hear you saying that your issue with David's video was the slow speed he was working at in terms of actually getting work done. I can see you are making more strokes in less time. How else do you think the speed of the work can be increased? Am I missing other pointers in the video?

Brian, I have been watching your videos on YouTube, thanks for putting them up. I have been clamping the boards I have been jointing much like you do in the video above. I still plan to practice until I can make reliable working edges like Steve illustrates, ultimately I imagine it will make me faster regardless of whether I use the jig or not?

I have been clamping my pieces to a Festool table top I built as a saw/glue up station, which is pretty easy/fast to clamp to. If I can saw, work edges and do glue ups all in the same place, I think I will work faster. I am still working board surfaces at my bench in the tail vise. Sawing, clamping/gluing, and working edges seems to work well at a little higher work surface. My new "saw table" is higher than my bench.

I also added a folding table top to the back of my Festool work surface ( not in the picture below), so I have a place to stack wood being worked without having it in the way of the work.

339429

I am wondering how others "stage" their work, as this seems a good way to speed up the work.

[Kees Heiden]

And now for some thicknessing Steve!

[Kees Heiden]

When dealing with a widish board, like you are in the first video Steve, and the board is cupped, then another strategy is traversing. The well known Chris Schwarz is advocating this strategy, and he got it from Moxon. I completely bought into this theory, and indeed, planing across the grain is easier. The wood gives up easier then planing along the grain, it is as if you only need to shovel up the wood fibers.

But it is also slow. On each stroke, chock-chock, you remove two small bites of wood. While with a long grain stroke directed at the high sides of the cup, swoooooosh, you remove a lot of wood in one go.

Much later on in my cabinet build I will have to deal with the top and there will be some thicknessing because I suspect the boards will be too fat to look good. That is an Instance where I think cross grain planing with a scrub is a usefull strategy.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Kees

I tend to do quite a good bit of traversing. One reason is that this is important when flattening panels hat have already been glued up. In these cases, the shavings will be relatively fine. Another reason is when working with interlocked grain as this direction is less likely to lead to tearout. In such cases, speed is not as important as the final finish.

For this type of work I prefer a low angle plane (LV LA Jack with a slight camber, or the Veritas Custom #7 with the 40 degree frog).

I would not use a scrub plane for this direction (90 degrees to the edge) as it will be too destructive to the surface as the grain is hit edge-on with a plane designed for deep work. Instead I would plane at 45 degrees if I wanted to remove waste fast.

Your mileage may vary, but this is my experience with hard, brittle woods.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Which shows that there is indeed a wide variety of planing processes. All needing a little different approach.

[Brian Holcombe]

Brian,
Of course I don't mind! I hope more videos will be posted. The only thing I'm hoping for is that we move off of pure mechanics and look at planing in context of actually doing something. Your vid is a great reminder that there are lots of different contexts in which we plane. The part I really like is after you back off the depth of cut, the plane stops cutting in the middle because the work is no longer flexing in the middle under the pressure of a heavy cut. It also appears to me that you are deliberately trying to take pressure off the middle as you push through the cut. Which is the opposite of what we do in "normal" planing. Subtle variations of pressure, direction, and skew are what make it possible to achieve good results in difficult situations.

Thanks Steve! Yes, exactly I'm attempting to lighten up on pressure in the middle of the cut. I actually switch to another plane toward the end of that, switching from a jack to a jointer set for a light cut and something closer to a smooth finish.


I am trying to figure out how you guys are taking these videos? Phones have become so good at taking pictures, I use mine for most of my pictures. There are also all sorts of small sports/helmet cams people use these days. I agree that watching a video helps one see what one is really doing instead of what we think we are doing. I have reason to want to photograph other peoples and animals form during another physical activity as well.

Steve, in the context of actually doing work, I am wondering what kind of camber, if any, you have on the plane(s) you are using? I am all about learning to do the work faster. I think I hear you saying that your issue with David's video was the slow speed he was working at in terms of actually getting work done. I can see you are making more strokes in less time. How else do you think the speed of the work can be increased? Am I missing other pointers in the video?

Brian, I have been watching your videos on YouTube, thanks for putting them up. I have been clamping the boards I have been jointing much like you do in the video above. I still plan to practice until I can make reliable working edges like Steve illustrates, ultimately I imagine it will make me faster regardless of whether I use the jig or not?

I have been clamping my pieces to a Festool table top I built as a saw/glue up station, which is pretty easy/fast to clamp to. If I can saw, work edges and do glue ups all in the same place, I think I will work faster. I am still working board surfaces at my bench in the tail vise. Sawing, clamping/gluing, and working edges seems to work well at a little higher work surface. My new "saw table" is higher than my bench.

I also added a folding table top to the back of my Festool work surface ( not in the picture below), so I have a place to stack wood being worked without having it in the way of the work.

339429

I am wondering how others "stage" their work, as this seems a good way to speed up the work.

Mike, not really an either/or approach in my opinion. I like clamping sideways to the bench for thinner stock because it's more reliable for me than dancing on the edge. For heavy stock I rather do exactly as Steve is doing in his video. So they're both just tools for how to use your tools. :D

In fact David's video is equally useful as that is an excellent approach to taking those last few smoother shavings on something you've flattened.

Like a surgeon working on a patient, you chose which tool, setting, and approach depending on the particulars.

[Stewie Simpson]

Proper technique; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m231_HKCOWs

[Mike Holbrook]

Right Brian. I was thinking that learning to do thick stock like Steve illustrates teaches a set of physical skills that will help with all the work, even when working with the jig you show. Sometimes I can get a fairly narrow piece level by simply clamping it in a vise like Steve shows and having at it with my plane. Sometimes, however, I just establish another edge that is still not 90 to my side. Someone somewhere, maybe Warren, suggested that learning/practicing that skill set so that you can do it with just a vise and plane is worth doing.

I think that David's video was done to illustrate physically "safe" techniques to new woodworkers more than trying to illustrate how to get real work done expeditiously. I understand Steve's point too though, sometimes David's pace can be excruciatingly slow, even if there is a reason to go that slow to be clear. As you say David's video might be more applicable to final strokes as well.

Good analogy Brian, we are in fact "operating" on wood at several levels and the tools and methods certainly vary for a myriad of reasons.

Stewie, looks like Sellers even resorted to pulling vs pushing his Stanely plane, like it was a Japanese plane, after he got physically tired. When one set of muscles fags out use another less fatigued set. Which is the other reason to use lower angle planes transversing the work, like Derek mentions above, or switching to Japanese planes like Brian sometimes does.

[Warren Weckesser]

When dealing with a widish board, like you are in the first video Steve, and the board is cupped, then another strategy is traversing. The well known Chris Schwarz is advocating this strategy, and he got it from Moxon. I completely bought into this theory, and indeed, planing across the grain is easier. The wood gives up easier then planing along the grain, it is as if you only need to shovel up the wood fibers.

But it is also slow. On each stroke, chock-chock, you remove two small bites of wood. While with a long grain stroke directed at the high sides of the cup, swoooooosh, you remove a lot of wood in one go.


Richard Maguire has a short video about this here: http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/premium-videos/
Scroll down to the second video clip, "An Excerpt From Our Prepping Rant". He also briefly and concisely summarizes his technique, including foot placement and body dynamics.

[Brian Holcombe]

Right Brian. I was thinking that learning to do thick stock like Steve illustrates teaches a set of physical skills that will help with all the work, even when working with the jig you show. Sometimes I can get a fairly narrow piece level by simply clamping it in a vise like Steve shows and having at it with my plane. Sometimes, however, I just establish another edge that is still not 90 to my side. Someone somewhere, maybe Warren, suggested that learning/practicing that skill set so that you can do it with just a vise and plane is worth doing.

I think that David's video was done to illustrate physically "safe" techniques to new woodworkers more than trying to illustrate how to get real work done expeditiously. I understand Steve's point too though, sometimes David's pace can be excruciatingly slow, even if there is a reason to go that slow to be clear. As you say David's video might be more applicable to final strokes as well.

Good analogy Brian, we are in fact "operating" on wood at several levels and the tools and methods certainly vary for a myriad of reasons.

Stewie, looks like Sellers even resorted to pulling vs pushing his Stanely plane, like it was a Japanese plane, after he got physically tired. When one set of muscles fags out use another less fatigued set. Which is the other reason to use lower angle planes transversing the work, like Derek mentions above, or switching to Japanese planes like Brian sometimes does.

Less so is it about skill and more so about practicality. I work 1/4", 3/8" and 1/2" stock very regularly and while I can plane them in the same way that I do 1-3/4" stock it's just super fast to stack them and butt them up against a bench stop and plane them quickly making a nice side. Handy for making box interiors, ect. If they're short enough I'll even use a bench hook.

I'm not offering this as an either/or and prefer not to think of it in that context, but more of a 'plus'. You should know how to joint, plus you can do it this way for thin stock. This does not remove the need to joint stock in the upright fashion.

[Graham Haydon]

339442

339443

https://youtu.be/K48FezBoPWg?t=3m10s

339444

I was unsure if I should add this to David's thread or here in Steve's. Steve, remind me never to cross you! You have quite a punch :). I've attached images and a clip from Mr Wilson's video, each shown a different approach to suit a task.

I fully understand David's point in his thread and like to think I'd do that for edge jointing or for a through shaving or two once the stock is flat. That's also shown well in the video clip ad the photo of the bloke edge jointing.

I think Derek mentioned using a shooting board, I thought I'd add a photo of a long grain shooting board too. it shows a different approach and body position.

Then I have a drawing of a jack plane in use showing a change in arm position to suit the deep cut, doubtless the the body supports the movement too but with the drawing it's showing a clear movement of the arms.

I'll make the point for the last time (as I'm sure it's getting boring me mentioning it) that if you work on machined planed stock you will likely be taking the plane for a walk more than if you work with sawn boards. And machines have been around for while, google "Samuel Bentham".

Steve, I hope this comes across the right way but since making my cut a touch lighter and working on a steady rhythm I think I've improved a bit. It's made me think that I might have space in the collection for a scrub/bismacrk plane to rip of the high spots.

Stewie, nice link. It made me see the value of having the wood mounted along the length of the bench rather than mounted in an improvised way although improvised methods are good too!

[Patrick Chase]

I've never made a video before. But in Kees "Elbows" thread (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?244553-Elbows), I was critical of Mr. Charlesworth's video, and I figure it's a bit unfair to criticize someone else without offering them the same opportunity. So, here's a video

One thing that struck me was your choice to start by using lengthwise strokes on a badly cupped board like that.

I personally believe that crosswise or diagonal strokes take less energy per unit material removed than do lengthwise ones. In the case of cup you know how material must be removed at a minimum at each location, without reference to any other part of the board
. My own approach is therefore to attack cup with crosswise/diagnonal strokes until it's gone, and the switch to lengthwise strokes to "tie together" the results and to fix bow and twist. Any reason you seem to work almost exclusively lengthwise?


Admittedly I do check the board for twist before I start removing cup, and I adjust my cup removal accordingly. As I work out towards the end I intentionally take partial strokes that remove more material from the high side of the board than the low side to reduce the amount of work I'll have to do later when working lengthwise.

[Tim Bridge]

One thing that you should change is that when are recording you should turn your phone in the landscape position.
This way the recording will fill the whole screen and not just a portion in the center.

[Kees Heiden]

One thing that struck me was your choice to start by using lengthwise strokes on a badly cupped board like that.

I personally believe that crosswise or diagonal strokes take less energy per unit material removed than do lengthwise ones. In the case of cup you know how material must be removed at a minimum at each location, without reference to any other part of the board
. My own approach is therefore to attack cup with crosswise/diagnonal strokes until it's gone, and the switch to lengthwise strokes to "tie together" the results and to fix bow and twist. Any reason you seem to work almost exclusively lengthwise?

Admittedly I do check the board for twist before I start removing cup, and I adjust my cup removal accordingly. As I work out towards the end I intentionally take partial strokes that remove more material from the high side of the board than the low side to reduce the amount of work I'll have to do later when working lengthwise.

There are definitely two schools of thought here. When you watch Richard McGuire's short video extract (posted by Warren at the top of this page), you see him reasoning how lengthwise strokes are more economical in output per stroke. You just need a lot less strokes. While traversing econimises on the effort per stroke.

In the end both methds work. Allthough I would say the traversing works better on wider stock versus the lengthwise planing is better on narrower stuff.

[Andrew Hughes]

Sometimes when I'm at the coffee shop I see lots of coffee stir sticks with a bow or twist.I leave those behind and pick two straight ones.Just in case one doesn't do the job.
I do the same at the lumber yard.:)

[Kees Heiden]

I wish I could be so choosy. I choose boards as wide as possible (and as far as applicable for the job) and look for the color and the grain. I take bow, cup and twist for granted. It is almost inevitable in dried stock anyway.

[James Pallas]

All of these posts are relevant. Sometimes you get a board like a worn country lane that you can travel along okay and sometimes you get a corduroy road with different size logs and mud gushing up that will shake your fillings out. That's why different planes, irons and techniques.
Jim

[Patrick Chase]

There are definitely two schools of thought here. When you watch Richard McGuire's short video extract (posted by Warren at the top of this page), you see him reasoning how lengthwise strokes are more economical in output per stroke. You just need a lot less strokes. While traversing econimises on the effort per stroke.

It doesn't (just) economize on effort per stroke - that would be a false economy as each stroke removes less.

In my experience cross strokes economize on effort per unit material removed, which IMO is the only relevant or valid metric for roughing. Specifically deep roughing cuts are easier in terms of instantaneous force/power for any given cross-section (~width*depth) when done across or diagonal to the grain.

I agree that with really narrow stock that advantage is negated by the increased overhead of transitioning from one stroke to the next. Diagonal strokes help mitigate that, but at some point you just have to accept the inefficiency of working lengthwise. IMO the example Steve posted wasn't such a case, though.

[Steve Voigt]

And now for some thicknessing Steve!

OK, you asked for it!

Part 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfDD0i8nSDU

[Steve Voigt]

And Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ebfAmObGOo

I broke it into two videos because of phone memory issues.

If you like watching videos of paint drying or stalactites forming, you'll enjoy this one, especially part 1. 30 minutes of blasting off material with a jack. Anybody who watches the whole thing will probably need therapy.

It's a good illustration of why, as I was saying the other day, we want to minimize unnecessary thicknessing when working mostly or all by hand. I could have easily thicknessed this to 1 7/8 instead of 1 3/4. For what I'm using it for (chair legs), it would have made much more sense to flatten one side and one edge, then rip the blank into squares and thickness them individually, or turn them on the lathe, whatever. But I wanted to use this as an excuse to flatten a decent sized board and take a lot of material, just to contrast it to other approaches.

And with that, I think I'm done with vids for a while. The hour-and-change that I spent working that board pales in comparison to the time and frustration of dealing with iphone, Mac, and youtube. I need a beer!

[Steve Voigt]

Richard Maguire has a short video about this here: http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/premium-videos/
Scroll down to the second video clip, "An Excerpt From Our Prepping Rant". He also briefly and concisely summarizes his technique, including foot placement and body dynamics.


Warren, thanks for posting this link. I mentioned it in the other thread, but I couldn't find the link. Terrific video.

[Steve Voigt]

I was unsure if I should add this to David's thread or here in Steve's. Steve, remind me never to cross you! You have quite a punch :). I've attached images and a clip from Mr Wilson's video, each shown a different approach to suit a task.

…

I'll make the point for the last time (as I'm sure it's getting boring me mentioning it) that if you work on machined planed stock you will likely be taking the plane for a walk more than if you work with sawn boards. And machines have been around for while, google "Samuel Bentham".


Graham,

I'm 5' 10" and a buck-fifty. I think you can take me. :)
Thanks for uploading those images and the video of George. You make an excellent point about different approaches being suited to different tasks. Obviously, if you are jointing an edge as long as George is doing, you have to use the walk-along technique; there's no alternative.


Steve, I hope this comes across the right way but since making my cut a touch lighter and working on a steady rhythm I think I've improved a bit. It's made me think that I might have space in the collection for a scrub/bismacrk plane to rip of the high spots.

My rhythm sucks, especially in the first video. I'm out of practice on wider boards; most of the time I'm working pieces that are 3 1/4" wide or less, usually less. I'm not claiming that my technique is exemplary, only that the basic approach I'm using (which I obviously didn't invent) is a good one for when machinery isn't involved. But I'm miles away from the kind of beautiful, fluid technique that say Richard McGuire has. Still, making the videos definitely has got me thinking about it a bit more, and I actually think my technique in the last two videos is better than in the first video. I'm grateful to Kees and everyone for forcing the issue.

One other thing about rhythm, though. One thing I wanted to demonstrate is that flattening (as opposed to thicknessing) is not about indiscriminate scrubbing away, removing loads of material. There are too many videos that show that approach, and I think it's really misleading. Flattening, if you don't want to waste material, is about planing a little, checking, planing a little more, checking again, etc. It's hard to develop much rhythm, but that's OK.


Stewie, nice link. It made me see the value of having the wood mounted along the length of the bench rather than mounted in an improvised way although improvised methods are good too!

LOL, you have an innate talent for making lemonade out of lemons. ;)

[Steve Voigt]

There are definitely two schools of thought here. When you watch Richard McGuire's short video extract (posted by Warren at the top of this page), you see him reasoning how lengthwise strokes are more economical in output per stroke. You just need a lot less strokes. While traversing econimises on the effort per stroke.

In the end both methds work. Allthough I would say the traversing works better on wider stock versus the lengthwise planing is better on narrower stuff.



It doesn't (just) economize on effort per stroke - that would be a false economy as each stroke removes less.

In my experience cross strokes economize on effort per unit material removed, which IMO is the only relevant or valid metric for roughing. Specifically deep roughing cuts are easier in terms of instantaneous force/power for any given cross-section (~width*depth) when done across or diagonal to the grain.

I agree that with really narrow stock that advantage is negated by the increased overhead of transitioning from one stroke to the next. Diagonal strokes help mitigate that, but at some point you just have to accept the inefficiency of working lengthwise. IMO the example Steve posted wasn't such a case, though.

Patrick, Kees, et al:

I basically agree with Kees, and Richard McGuire here, but it is not a black and white thing. I think either way is fine, and at some point the board gets wide enough that traversing becomes an advantage. Cutting to the chase, traversing takes longer, but you will be less tired at the end. So it depends on the number and size of boards, how hard the wood is, how cupped it is, how much time you have, etc. It's a judgement call.

One other thing to consider though: traversing aways brings the risk of spelching, and the only sure-fire way to avoid it is to put a big chamfer on the far side, which may not fully come out when you're done. So that may be a problem, depending on what you're doing with the material.

[Patrick Chase]

One other thing to consider though: traversing aways brings the risk of spelching, and the only sure-fire way to avoid it is to put a big chamfer on the far side, which may not fully come out when you're done. So that may be a problem, depending on what you're doing with the material.

Depends whether the workpiece is already close to final width, or will be ripped. If the latter it's just a matter of orientation...

[george wilson]

The technique you choose for any kind of planing,especially the long edge I was planing in the video,is to develop enough skill to not tilt the plane sideways either way while planing. The same is true of the sawing that just followed it: Learn to keep the saw strokes parallel. No waggling up and down of the saw. No forcing the saw into the wood so hard it gets hung up and tries to buckle the blade. But,the steady holding of the plane on the edge at 90º is the most important thing. Learning to not waggle the saw promotes better angle holding accuracy.

[Pat Barry]

Did it really take 45 minutes (roughly) to flatten one face on that board?

[Patrick Chase]

Cutting to the chase, traversing takes longer, but you will be less tired at the end.

Sorry about the double-reply, but... If traversing leaves you less tired at the end them IMO you're not taking full advantage of the technique. The entire point of traversing is that it allows you to take a more rank cut while staying within your strength/endurance limits. If you're "less tired" while traversing then it's time to give that blade a tap or three...

[Patrick Chase]

Did it really take 45 minutes (roughly) to flatten one face on that board?

No, flattening only took 17:00 (the first video).

It then took him 45 minutes to thickness it down to 1-3/4". As previously noted I think that diagonal/cross strokes might have allowed a more rank set and thereby been slightly faster overall, but hand-thicknessing is brutally slow work regardless. There's a reason why I don't have a powered jointer, but do have a lunchbox planer...

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Steve

Thanks for the huge effort you put into the videos. Much appreciated.

A couple of points ...

Firstly, the issue of planing with the grain or traversing is decided by the nature of the wood (the highs/lows, grain type, hardness, brittleness, etc). It certainly would be my preference - where possible - to plane with the grain to remove high spots (I would find the best side to balance the board, so there is no one side I would always choose - the high could be in the centre or at the sides).

Secondly, I draw a line around the board, if possible, even when there is a fair amount of twist or cupping on the side to be planed, and one has to judge where the line can go (this is pre-thicknessing). Planing to a line is always easier than guessing and constantly measuring. Getting one side flat is where it all starts (I mentioned this in the last Pop Wood edition, where I had the last article in the magazine - it was a rejoinder to Chris Schwarz and, although it concentrated on power tool use, the principle I follow remained the same ... aim to create one flat, coplanar side before you will proceed further).

Thirdly, while I know this was for demonstration purposes, I would not thickness that board with a plane. I would first level one side with a plane (or machine), and then I would re-saw it (handsaw or bandsaw .. pick your poison). If this was a real situation, planing could waste a lot of wood, plus it takes so much more time and energy. If the waste thickness is little, I plane it away. The question then is, what is considered within reason to plane away ... 1/8", 1/4", 1/2" ..?

Lastly, your body mechanics look good to me. While you could relax your hips a little more, I could see you rocking onto your knees (which is good), and then you would stiffen them, which brings the hips into play (also good). I think any awkwardness was a result of the planing height being at the limit, perhaps a little over, a comfortable height (the combination of a thick board and a high-sided plane). Incidentally, what wood were you planing, how hard is it, and how sharp were the blades in the planes you used. The jack seemed to struggle at times.

Yes, I know I shall need to post a video and not just photos. I will do so when I have time (when projects are completed). Then you can have a shot at me! :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks for the videos Steve! I love to watch people working way to hard for their own good :D

Reagdrng the traversing issue, I think for thicknessing it is actually a very good idea. The blade is in the wood most of the time, each stroke takjes full advantage of the cutting action. And you sure can remove a lot of wood in one swoop when planing across the grain with a scrub.

But not so much for removing cup. It is the chick-nothing-chick syndrom of the jackplane trying to remove the material on both sides of the depression. 30 strokes with the jack plane cross wise, slowly working your way along the board, can be replaced with maybe 8 strokes lengthwise. The blade remains all the time in the cut in the latter version.

BTW, when your youtube channel is ready, posting is not a lot of effort with an iphone. As long as you forget about editting. There is an upload button, and at least on my iphone, you can directly send the video to youtube. And when the video is really too long, you can shorten it on the iphone, at the start and at the end. I don't know if you can edit anything in the middle though.

[Graham Haydon]

Thanks for the reply Steve. I also find watching myself in a video helpful, while drinking a glass of lemonade :)

[Brian Holcombe]

Every time I re-watch that series of videos of George and his journeyman making the violin and harpsichord I gain more from it.

The trouble with planning to resaw anything more than 1/8"~ is that it's more effort at some point. I'll resaw thinner stock because it's easier than taking alot of material off it, but heavy stock like 12" wide panels....not less work and you don't necessarily know if you are doing yourself a favor or a disservice in anything outside of straight grained material.

[Derek Cohen]

Brian, that's the other decision: in addition to waste thickness, how wide a board (and how hard the wood) would decide you in favour (or not) of resawing by hand? It is not always a simple decision. That board of Steve's would be one for resawing, I believe.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

If you are setup to resaw wide boards quickly, by hand, that would likely bias your decision. However, I don't think Steve is taking off so much material that it really is a consideration. What you're left with, if he were to resaw it, is a thin board that tapers from maybe 3/16" to 1/16" that has two high spots. So 'maybe' you'll get a veneer out of it. The effort probably adds to the overall time and your left with a piece of 'veneer' without figure and likely will sit in a pile for quite some time, or cup and be practically useless.

My opinion would change if you were left with something that could be used as drawer bottom or cabinet back, etc.

However, we're deviating quite heavily from what Steve is attempting to show by bringing up every variable for consideration. If Steve band-sawed off one side of the board I think he would come into even more criticism as that is not overly helpful to people who work with just hand tools.

[Derek Cohen]

I agree Brian. I mentioned re-sawing only as a point of interest. It was an aside.

Do you have any comments about the technique shown by Steve?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

When I made my dining room table I had to do quite some scrubbing to make the underside of the table top parallel to the upper side, with quite a bit of thicknessing mixed in. The scrubbing part of the job went pretty fast, but I didn't dare to get too close to the marking line, so I was left with a lot of work with the jack plane and the jointer parallel to the grain. But for this type of work, scrubbing across the grain is very fast. If it isn't a rediculous amount, then it sure beats handsawing a wide board.

We discussed this issue a bit back then , and the concensus was that in the Middle ages or there abouts, they wouldn't thickness at all. They would just let in the legs to get a stable table and maybe chamfer the edges a bit to lighten the looks.

Video from 2013:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJKa9Czzy3Q

[Pat Barry]

When I made my dining room table I had to do quite some scrubbing to make the underside of the table top parallel to the upper side, with quite a bit of thicknessing mixed in. The scrubbing part of the job went pretty fast, but I didn't dare to get too close to the marking line, so I was left with a lot of work with the jack plane and the jointer parallel to the grain. But for this type of work, scrubbing across the grain is very fast. If it isn't a rediculous amount, then it sure beats handsawing a wide board.

We discussed this issue a bit back then , and the concensus was that in the Middle ages or there abouts, they wouldn't thickness at all. They would just let in the legs to get a stable table and maybe chamfer the edges a bit to lighten the looks.

Video from 2013:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJKa9Czzy3Q
Yes - this is how I did my workbench top several years ago. Jack plane with a fairly well convex bade, 45 degree angles to the work, traversing and criss crossing to get the top basically level but not flat, then with the grain to get things close to flat, then finished with a small plane. Never used my jointer - it wasn't suitable for use back then as I didn't know much about proper setup. Steve would have been well served to use a scrub plane or at least go crossgrain in order to hog down the high spots and get the taper out of the board before doing the surfacing work he did. He could have 'shaved' considerable time out of the process.

[george wilson]

If you want to use tapered shims,it is o.k.,I suppose. But I would recommend planing with the concave side down to start with. Not really an important issue. Take it for what it's worth.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Do you have any comments about the technique shown by Steve?


With the caveats that I watched the first one, but have not watched the second batch, and (2) Steve obviously has far more skill than I do so this is really offered in the spirit of discussion, and not criticism:

If you are doing any serious flattening, it is going to take a while. That means sustained physical work. I personally do not do very well when the plane is set to take a shaving that will take about 90% of my effort to push it through the cut. If I am working that hard on every cut, I tire quickly and that makes it harder to pay attention to technique. Not doing this for a living every day, I need all the attention on my technique that I can spare. Instead I prefer to set it for a lighter cut, one that will take maybe 60% effort (the numbers are arbitrary and simply for illustration), but that will allow me to work for a couple of hours without tiring too much.

So my comment is that I would not have approached that board with a jack plane set for that thick a cut. It just looks like it was too close to the limit of what I could push easily. If that board were in my shop, I would have started with the other side (belly up), used a scrub plane (actually taking a thicker cut, but with a much narrower blade, so it is easier to push), and focused on the high spots. Once the high spots were down, I would have turned to the jack (but with a less aggressive cut) to get it mostly flat. I would have then turned to a try or jointer, pretty much as Steve did. Once one side was flat, I would have turned it over and worked on the "cup." I see his point in going down the grain for efficiency, but in all honesty I have settled into doing them at an angle across the grain. Going down the grain of a long board, I just feel like I spend more time walking back and forth than I do working, and once I got comfortable doing them at an angle muscle memory or whatever just make me want to do it that way even on shorter pieces like the one Steve has in the video. Again, I would use the scrub pretty aggressively to knock down the high spots before moving on to the jack and jointer. I avoided buying a scrub for a long time because I thought it was too much money, but after I found one cheap, I have to say I wish I had purchased it a long time before. It really makes flattening and thicknessing a lot more manageable for me.

Not specific to Steve's video, but in reaction to other comments in this thread and the two "companions":

Spelching is a problem (particularly with the scrub) if I go 90 degrees to the grain, but I usually go at an angle, with the plane kind of skewed a little bit. That results in sort of a slicing cut, and I don't have problems on the far side if I do it like that, but for finish dimensions I usually do a small bevel (as much to give me a visual cue as to where to stop as anything, but it also helps avoid spelching). For the cup side, I have sometimes done what Paul Sellers does in the video that was posted earlier, going completely across the board, but if it is severely cupped, I usually do one "side" of the cup at a time, at least with the scrub. That seems to let me flatten the board without wasting any more material than necessary. The final cuts with the jack are across the full width, and the jointer goes with the grain.

I approach thicknesing the same way I approach flattening. If there is a lot of material to remove I start with a scrub. I do use a bevel on the edges when thicknessing, because it really helps avoid going too deep.

This has been a very interesting discussion (including the earlier thread by Kees, and the separate thread by David Charlesworth), and the videos are enlightening. It is really very nice to have people like Steve, David Charlesworth, and others (too many to list) willing to offer their advice and experience to virtual strangers. I am certainly no expert, but have spent a fair amount of time trying to get flat boards with parallel faces by hand, and it sounds easier than it is, particularly with nobody to stand in your shop and show you how, and hopefully these comments come across in the constructive sense they are intended, and not as criticisms of what anybody else finds to be a good way to do things.

[george wilson]

When I first took school shop,we had to make a gun rack(to store rifles vertically). I HAD NO GUNS!!! I HATE "required projects"! They show NO IMAGINATION on the part of the teacher.

Anyhow,we had to hand plane all the wood. I never had any "required projects" in the years I taught shop.

[Steve Voigt]

Thanks to everyone (well, almost everyone) who responded. I appreciate the feedback. I'll make a few individual responses in a bit, but first a couple of blanket comments.

I think that a lot of people didn't actually watch the thicknessing videos. Which I totally understand--who wants to watch half an hour of jack planing? But in that video, I did quite a lot of cross-grain planing, and even some traversing. I remarked on the angles I was using in the video. So please bear that in mind if your criticism was that I was only doing straight, with the grain planing. Even in the first video, there's a good amount of diagonal work.

That said, I was struck by the number of experienced people who recommended more cross grain planing, so I will consider that seriously, and experiment some more this summer. It's irrelevant to 90% of the work I do, which is pieces narrower than 4", but for wider stuff I'll play around a little.

There were a few comments implying that the work was excessively slow. I don't think I'm the fastest guy around and I'm happy to take the criticism. But I will mention once more the scale of the work: I started with an 8" x 24" white oak board, severely cupped and twisted, but a fairly uniform 2 1/8" thick. In under an hour of actual planing (on the faces), I removed 3/8" of thickness and ended up with two faces that were straight, untwisted, parallel, and of good surface quality. I'm pretty comfortable with that pace. I have no doubt that some people here could shave a few minutes off that, but for anyone claiming that they could "shave considerable time" off that mark, I'd ask you to prove it. It's pretty easy to move faster in mahogany, poplar, cherry, pine, etc., but in oak, hard maple, etc., not so much.

Sorry if that sounds snarky; I do appreciate the majority of comments and I've enjoyed the discussion.

[Steve Voigt]

Hi Steve
Thanks for the huge effort you put into the videos. Much appreciated.
Derek

Thanks Derek, I appreciate that.


I draw a line around the board, if possible, even when there is a fair amount of twist or cupping on the side to be planed, and one has to judge where the line can go (this is pre-thicknessing). Planing to a line is always easier than guessing and constantly measuring.

That's an interesting suggestion; I've never tried that. Once the board was shimmed and clamped, I could have used a pencil on top of a couple pieces of scrap to scribe a line parallel to the benchtop. Or I could use a compass. I'm not sure it would really save much time, but I will give it a shot next time.


Thirdly, while I know this was for demonstration purposes, I would not thickness that board with a plane.

I addressed this a couple times. For its intended purpose (leg blanks), I'd much rather just saw the board first. I did it this way, slower and harder, so that folks like you could take shots at me. :) OK seriously, I was trying to advance the discussion and I didn't think I should criticize without offering up a video or three of my own.


Lastly, your body mechanics look good to me. While you could relax your hips a little more, I could see you rocking onto your knees (which is good), and then you would stiffen them, which brings the hips into play (also good).

I appreciate that. I've planing for many years and have never suffered tennis elbow or anything debilitating; I've only suffered sore muscles and (after I hit 40) sore joints. So the technique can't be too bad, but I think it has improved a bit from the recent discussion.


Incidentally, what wood were you planing, how hard is it, and how sharp were the blades in the planes you used. The jack seemed to struggle at times.

Sorry to end on a sour note, but this is frankly a little insulting. Do you really think I didn't sharpen the blades before I turned on the camera? I trust you know what a sharp blade sounds like, so maybe go back and listen to the audio.

As far as the jack "struggling" goes, it didn't. Here's something that hasn't been mentioned at all so far in the endless discussion of body mechanics: Every time you push a plane into wood, you first make a (unconscious, almost instantaneous) decision about how much force to apply, before the cut begins. If you apply maximum force at the beginning of every cut, you will (A) get tired fast, and (B) possibly lose control. What we all do (again, unconsciously) is estimate the amount of force needed to carry through the cut. With a metal plane, you have a little more leeway to adjust this in mid-stroke, because the plane has more momentum, but with a woodie if you've slightly underestimated the needed force, you're going to stall. It's no biggie; it may not look very elegant on camera, but it has little effect on the work being done. Again, the species matter. Someone planing a piece of poplar will likely have fewer stall-outs than I did here, planing oak with a knot in it.

[Steve Voigt]

When I made my dining room table I had to do quite some scrubbing to make the underside of the table top parallel to the upper side, with quite a bit of thicknessing mixed in. The scrubbing part of the job went pretty fast, but I didn't dare to get too close to the marking line, so I was left with a lot of work with the jack plane and the jointer parallel to the grain. But for this type of work, scrubbing across the grain is very fast. If it isn't a rediculous amount, then it sure beats handsawing a wide board.


Kees, this is the essence of how I feel about the scrub. It may be very fast, but it leaves a lot of cleanup for the jack, and there is always the danger of excessive spelching or blowout past your mark. To me it's not worth it. Somehow, British and U.S. woodworkers of the 18th - 19th centuries managed to do an enormous amount of handwork without the scrub, just the traditional jack, try, smoother trio. But the scrub v. jack argument has been going for a long time, and I'm sure it will keep going (but without me).

Also, thanks for the comments on tech stuff. I'm not too proud to admit I need help--I suck at that stuff! Youtube wouldn't let me upload from my phone at first, but you're right, I wasn't properly set up for that, so I'll try again. Thanks!

[Steve Voigt]

If you want to use tapered shims,it is o.k.,I suppose. But I would recommend planing with the concave side down to start with. Not really an important issue. Take it for what it's worth.


If that board were in my shop, I would have started with the other side (belly up), used a scrub plane (actually taking a thicker cut, but with a much narrower blade, so it is easier to push), and focused on the high spots.

George and Nick,

I'm sure we all agree that the choice of cupped or bowed side first is not a huge issue. But, FWIW, if you put the cupped side down, the middle can flex, which complicates flattening. If you put the bowed side down and shim it, you have better support and less flex. Then you can put the flat side down when it's done and not worry. It obviously is not an issue with a thick board like the one I was using, but for thinner stock it can definitely be an issue, so I generally follow the same procedure.

Also Nick:


I am certainly no expert, but have spent a fair amount of time trying to get flat boards with parallel faces by hand, and it sounds easier than it is, particularly with nobody to stand in your shop and show you how, and hopefully these comments come across in the constructive sense they are intended, and not as criticisms of what anybody else finds to be a good way to do things.

Thanks very much for that; I certainly agree 100%. I appreciate your comments and the spirit in which they were offered. :)

[James Pallas]

Steve thank you for your courage to open yourself up to criticism. And any of the others such as Kees for starting this conversation and the others for their videos and comments. There is a lot of good info in this thread. We all know we could quarterback the Super Bowl winning team, from a recliner in the living room. Only a few are willing to take the lumps by putting themselves on display. It is all fun, isn't it!
Jim

[Patrick Chase]

I think that a lot of people didn't actually watch the thicknessing videos. Which I totally understand--who wants to watch half an hour of jack planing? But in that video, I did quite a lot of cross-grain planing, and even some traversing. I remarked on the angles I was using in the video. So please bear that in mind if your criticism was that I was only doing straight, with the grain planing. Even in the first video, there's a good amount of diagonal work.

Mea culpa - I skimmed, and must have gotten unlucky with the stopping points I chose. Sorry about that!

[Alan Schwabacher]

I'm sure we all agree that the choice of cupped or bowed side first is not a huge issue.

It's not, but since you've asked for feedback, here is some -- on terminology. I would say the board is cupped (curved perpendicular to the grain), and that this can be seen by looking at the concave and convex surfaces. I consider both cupped, but guess your "cupped" is my "concave". Bow is distinct: curvature of the face of the board along the grain, again not distinguishing one face from the other except as concave or convex.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

If you put the bowed side down and shim it, you have better support and less flex.

A valid consideration.

I also agree with your comment above about breaking the board down before planing. My first attempts with hand tools were heavily influenced by a woodworking show I used to watch that used a lot more power tools. He always started by four squaring the board (power jointer, planer), and then making cuts (tablesaw) to break it down to the pieces needed for legs, stretchers, shelves or whatever. It took me a while to realize that with hand tools it often makes more sense to break down the rough board, and then square everything up.

[george wilson]

It really is proper form to also put the hollow side of a cupped board down when running it across a jointer. Or when cross cutting it on a table saw. Keeps the board from being able to rock back and forth and not coming out flat, or pinching the blade.

Anyway,I was taught to plane with the hollow side down, and that is how I'd do it. Can't recall where I learned it. Possibly from one of those old WWI period woodworking books I read. But, I don't wear a suit and tie while working like they did!!:)

About speed,TWO strokes and I'd be out of breath at this stage!! I have COPD and just can't do that hard work any more.

[Mel Fulks]

It is much more common to see concave side down as it is seen to be safer on jointer. Not a woodworking thing ,a perceived liability thing. I've won some bets ,and converts, by demonstrating that a board can often straighten on BOTH sides while wood is jointed off on convex side. And if the uncut side does not improve, it at least will not get worse. Facing on concave side can make both sides worse. This is why you see so many boards faced on one side with too thin ends leaning against the walls of too many shops. George suggested in earlier post on hand planing to plane convex side first. I don't think I'm on to any good info he didn't know first. I know some don't feel comfortable suggesting anything contrary to norm due to conscience and or liability.

[Patrick Chase]

It is much more common to see concave side down as it is seen to be safer on jointer. Not a woodworking thing ,a perceived liability thing. I've won some bets ,and converts, by demonstrating that a board can often straighten on BOTH sides while wood is jointed off on convex side.

It takes better technique to flatten the convex side on a power jointer. In particular you have to make sure to start the cut with the board weighted near its center such that the cutter doesn't remove (too much) material from the end. Once the end is on the outfeed table it's business as usual, though.

[george wilson]

Even after the end of a convex board enters the outfeed table,it takes some skill to keep the board from rocking. I recommend jointing concave down. If the board is twisted,I plane off the opposite high corners and proceed to run the wood over the jointer.

I have the practice to do it either way,but I do not feel it is the best idea to suggest running the convex side first because someone new to woodworking might get excited and lose control if the board starts jiggling,and could get hurt.

I am basically agreeing with Mel. Planing off the convex side can relieve stress,but is perhaps riskier for newbies. That is my concern. Especially on a hard wood like oak,where your knives had better be sharp to avoid rattling of the board and a generally unstable situation.

I have gotten the stuffing kicked out of my palm a few times,when I was a LOT younger. The jointer I was looking at was an old,used one with DULL knives.

[Steve Elliott]

I don't want this thread to get hijacked, but Mel's point about using tension in a board to help straighten it by removing wood from the convex side is one of the most useful things I've learned in almost 40 years of working in cabinet shops. It doesn't always work because sometimes the tension goes the wrong way, but in a majority of boards removing wood from the middle of the convex side will make the board straighten out to some degree. I've almost given up trying to explain this to co-workers but when I hear someone else mention it I want to speak up and say THIS IS A GOOD TIP!

[Steve Voigt]

Steve thank you for your courage to open yourself up to criticism. And any of the others such as Kees for starting this conversation and the others for their videos and comments. There is a lot of good info in this thread. We all know we could quarterback the Super Bowl winning team, from a recliner in the living room. Only a few are willing to take the lumps by putting themselves on display. It is all fun, isn't it!
Jim

Thanks Jim! I appreciate that.

[Steve Voigt]

Mea culpa - I skimmed, and must have gotten unlucky with the stopping points I chose. Sorry about that!

Oh, no worries. I would've skimmed it too. As I said, who wants to watch a half hour of Jack planing? (Not me)

[george wilson]

I WANT to watch it!!!! GET planing!!!!:) Let me get a cool,tall drink first.:)

[Glen Canaday]

I WANT to watch it!!!! GET planing!!!!:) Let me get a cool,tall drink first.:)

Haha! "You get to work, I'll supervise! Where's my beer...."

[Steve Voigt]

I WANT to watch it!!!! GET planing!!!!:) Let me get a cool,tall drink first.:)

LOL George (and Glen), now I have to tell a story.
I worked in a machine shop and we had to tap a bunch of 2" holes in 2"-thick steel plate. The plates were about 5' x 5', and we didn't have any machines that could handle the work. So, one of the guys built a fixture that held the tap straight, and clamped it to the plate. They attached about a 5' cheater bar, and raised the plate up to waist height. Then, I walked around and around in circles in the hot San Diego sun, slowly tapping the holes. Talk about using your legs! After a while, all the guys came out with their coffee and Cokes to jeer and shout "encouragement." You guys remind me of them! 😜

[Pat Barry]

Proper technique; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m231_HKCOWs
Thanks Stewie, I missed this earlier. Yes, Sellers really does a good job of explaining things. His methods seem very efficient. I think he is a great resource. Loved his remark about his edge planing using his jack plane "glides like a swan on a lake". That's a great description

[Stewie Simpson]

Pat; I have read a lot of posts recently questioning Paul Sellers choice of a #4 steel plane to do most of the work load; here's a valid reason why; the weight of a #4 Stanley Plane is 3 3/4lbs ; the weight of a Stanley #5 Jack Plane is a pound heavier at 4 3/4lbs. Re the video; dealing with inherent cup and twist along its length and width; 43min to flatten & thickness the 2 primary faces; and joint the 2 edges; is damn good going at any age; let alone someone at 66yrs of age.

Stewie;

[steven c newman]

While I do follow Paul's work, sometimes I use my own ways...
339528
I happen to have a #5 set up with an 8" radius iron.....does a nice job...

[Kees Heiden]

There is one thing I don't unserstand about that video. Why does he clamp the board in the most unconvenient way on his bench? He has to reach over waaaay too far on many instances.

[Pat Barry]

There is one thing I don't unserstand about that video. Why does he clamp the board in the most unconvenient way on his bench? He has to reach over waaaay too far on many instances.
Probably for the best video angle

[Kevin Hampshire]

Pat, I think you nailed it. PS seems very attuned to the viewer's perspective.

[george wilson]

Steve,after all,I spent 40 years as a SUPERVISOR. Now my wife supervises ME, except when she has to ask me for help making jewelry models, making punch and die sets, fixing her punch press,etc..

[Brian Holcombe]

George, I'm 31 and my wife already supervises me....there is no escape from the watchful eye of management!

[david charlesworth]

Steve,

I can confirm this one!

Saved us several times, when one board seemed likely to be undersized.

Best wishes,
David

[Mel Fulks]

Steve,after all,I spent 40 years as a SUPERVISOR. Now my wife supervises ME, except when she has to ask me for help making jewelry models, making punch and die sets, fixing her punch press,etc..
Some supervisor! You care more about FINGERS than PRODUCT!!