Chip breaker placement on cambered blades

[Mike Holbrook]

I am interested in how other posters set chip breakers (CBs) on their more heavily cambered plane blades. I am specifically interested in where posters place the CB in relation to the camber in the blade. I tend to move the CB right up to the edge of the corners of the blade. The edge of the CB is even with or slightly behind the edge of the camber at either side/corner of the curve the camber makes in the blade. This CB placement leaves the camber protruding out past the edge of the CB every where but at the edge/corner of the blade.

I am typically using #5 1/2 & 4 Veritas Custom planes on pieces of wood that are 30" long or less and 1-2" thick, chair legs and glued up panels for raised panels. Typical projects involve removing relatively large amounts of wood with the cambered blade on the #5 1/2 and finishing with the #4.

This work dulls blades fast so I remove/sharpen/replace my blades, two of them, frequently. As I mentioned in a previous post I find the sliding mouth on the LV planes handy for removing and reinserting the blades. It also helps me to make sure the camber is optimally placed in the mouth, as I can match the gaps on either side of the blade when the mouth is tight to the blade. It may even help with tear out. Now I am wondering about chip clearance for the exiting wood.

I am interested in how this CB placement might alter exiting shavings, particularly with the small slope in the LV chip breakers.

[Kees Heiden]

I set the capiron just like you on my jack plane. This week I have been flattening some pieces of cherry. They were cupped and twisted a lot so I started with the jack plane. It left quite some tearout making it ugly but flat. Then I get the tryplane with a much straighter edge and the capiron set very close. This gets rid of most of the tearout quickly because I take a relatively thick shaving (a couple of thou thick).

[Jim Koepke]

Make it one more for setting it close at the edges. Not many of my blades actually have cambers, but those that do are not for uses where one is counting on the chip breaker to be an effective force against tear out.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

So it sounds like I am being advised that I should expect to get some tear out with a cambered blade even with the chip breaker as I can't set it close enough for it to do the job with maximum efficiency. I have been thinking about setting a #5 up with a reasonable amount of camber for the heavy removal of wood and using the 5 1/2 more as a try plane like Kees mentions above. Then I could further reduce the camber in the #5 1/2 and have less tear out. The old coarse, medium and fine (jack-try-smooth) plane concept is classic for a reason. I think this is the method Derek has suggested, in another post & his site. I am not exactly surprised with this advise as I have been testing the limits of what I can do with the two Custom planes I bought in the last year.

I have been pleasantly surprised at how well a Custom LV plane with a 40 degree frog and a chip breaker works at a wide range of planing chores, even end grain. I guess my next chore is to figure out whether to use the 5 1/2 as a jack or try plane and figure out what to use for the other job. I actually like the extra weight of the 5 1/2 when removing extra wood though. The extra blade width is capable of removing an equal amount of wood without having to go quite as deep too.

[Stanley Covington]

If tearout prevention is your goal for the CB, best to shape CB to match cutting edge profile for better control and more predictable performance

[Frederick Skelly]

If tearout prevention is your goal for the CB, best to shape CB to match cutting edge profile for better control and more predictable performance

I was thinking the same thing.

[steven c newman]

349131What I have for a cambered edge on a #5 jack plane, and
349132
Where I set the chipbreaker to.
349133
jack plane is a Stanley No.5c...think it is a early one. Maybe a 6 or a 7? It's main job here was to flatten a panel, wasn't the least worried about any tear-out, as I go across the grain. Then a #6 try plane to smooth out the valleys, and then a #4 smooth plane with the grain..
349134
And this is the panel I was working on.....

Someone is trying to remove a large amount of wood, with a cambered iron......and worried about tear-out? How very strange.....

[Mike Holbrook]

Stanley I actually made a post about whether or not it might make sense to camber the CB on a cambered blade. I have been trying to use the Custom 5 1/2 and Custom 4 for everything instead of the more common three plane system in an attempt to get better with all the "new" adjustments ASAP. I expect that when I expand the planes I use I will end up with a jack and try plane absolving the CB on the jack from any need to prevent tear out.

Thanks for the photos Steven. That is a good deal more camber than the camber on my Veritas 5 1/2, more than I have on my Stanley #5, probably more than I have on my Stanley 5 1/4. Certainly when we start talking about camber there is a wide range of opinions regarding how much may or may not be useful. Now that I have a good grinding system I have been going a little wild experimenting with cambers.

My idea with the Veritas Custom 5 1/2 was to try a wider plane blade with less camber vs a Stanley 5 1/4 with a greater camber. Deeper vs wider shavings if you will. I am admittedly "testing the limits".

I have been concentrating my efforts on my two newer planes in an attempt to figure out the advantages and limitations vs the other planes I have. I may reduce my plane population in an effort to be more familiar with a lesser number of tools. I have the most experience with Veritas BU planes which I'm sure skews my objectivity towards the adjustment system for Veritas planes.

[ken hatch]

[...
Someone is trying to remove a large amount of wood, with a cambered iron......and worried about tear-out? How very strange.....[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with Steven :). Traditional scrub planes do not have back irons/chip breakers. BTW, a wood stock scrub is still the best tool for removing large amounts of wood. They are much better in use than a modded iron stock. My ECE scrub is over 30 years old and still in use, the sole is a little rough (0k very rough) but that makes no never mind it still does the job. Another Creeker has posted photos of his user after many years of use and the same story, rough looking but still does the job.

Back to the original question: It also makes no never mind but it should be back far enough it doesn't jam with shavings or increase the effort to push the plane but close enough to allow the depth adjuster to work.

ken

[Mike Holbrook]

I tried to take a picture of the camber on my 5 1/2 blade. The wear marks on my CB and blade make it very difficult to see the camber on the 2 3/8" wide blade. Certainly not anything like a scrub or Steven's #5 above.

[allen long]

I think the potential issue with shaping the chipbreaker is the curved end of the cap iron will not seat across the entire width of the blade when the chip breaker is cambered or curved to match the blade camber.

[Kevin Hampshire]

I actually hadn't thought that much about it until I saw this post.

I keep my CBs close to the corners of the camber but I use a very mild camber and almost never get tear out. Now my metal scrub plane is a different matter though I strive to keep the PM-V11 blade reasonably sharp and don't rush with stock removal.

Like Allen mentioned, seems to me that messing around with a cambered chip breaker could really wreak havoc on the blade contact.

[Jim Koepke]

If one is cambering their blades it might be a good idea to consider the difference between a camber for rapid stock removal and the camber one would want on a smoother.

Something like what Steven posted is a good camber to take out thick scallops of material.

For smoothing one might consider a camber with a differential between the edges and center of only a few thousandths of an inch.

This would allow for a close set chip breaker for tear out control.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

If tearout prevention is your goal for the CB, best to shape CB to match cutting edge profile for better control and more predictable performance

I would advice against shaping the capiron to conform to the camber of the iron. On a jack plane it is rather futile anyway. The camber is just way too much, the capiron would be sticking out from under the sole and the resistance increases exponentionally. Jack planing is hard enough work. It's goal is not a flawless surface, but rapid stock removal. You end up with furrows anyway, accept the tearout too.

On a mildly cambered iron like for a try, jointer or smoothing plane it isn't neccessary either to shape the capiron. For starters it makes life unneccesarily complex to have to maintain two cambers and keeping them the same. And then it isn't neccessary because in the corners where the capiron approaches the edge, the shaving will be thinner or even non existant.

[Steve Voigt]

I would advice against shaping the capiron to conform to the camber of the iron. On a jack plane it is rather futile anyway. The camber is just way too much, the capiron would be sticking out from under the sole and the resistance increases exponentionally. Jack planing is hard enough work. It's goal is not a flawless surface, but rapid stock removal. You end up with furrows anyway, accept the tearout too.

On a mildly cambered iron like for a try, jointer or smoothing plane it isn't neccessary either to shape the capiron. For starters it makes life unneccesarily complex to have to maintain two cambers and keeping them the same. And then it isn't neccessary because in the corners where the capiron approaches the edge, the shaving will be thinner or even non existant.

The cambered cap iron is one of the great zombies of woodworking forums--no matter how many times you kill it, it comes back to life. I thought this thread (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?245789-Cap-iron-for-a-cambered-blade&p=2586993&highlight=#post2586993) did a pretty good job of taking apart the argument, though obviously not all agreed. And there have been numerous other threads over the past few years that made the same point.

[bridger berdel]

If tearout prevention is your goal for the CB, best to shape CB to match cutting edge profile for better control and more predictable performance


the only way that that is going to work is if you camber the sole of the plane too. that is called a gutter plane, and it won't be better than a jack plane for gross material removal in flattening .

[Charles Guest]

I shaped a cap iron years ago to serve as a pattern for grinding the iron and to match the edge. It's only about a sixteenth of an inch from the dead center of the iron out to the edges - about the amount of 'camber' recommended in several old woodworking manuals for one's jack plane. It wasn't until I read this thread and the other one that somebody linked, that I realized what I had done all those years ago (has to have been at least 20 years) hadn't been working all this time :). I rather like the set up. I think it does produce less tear out, though I've always been one not to produce a pock-marked minefield for my other planes to attempt to clean up all in the context of hitting some desired thickness of whatever board or panel I'm planing.

I don't have a specific recollection of doing this causing any problems with the fit of the cap iron to the back of the iron, though I'm guessing I worked the flat after grinding the curve but I simply don't remember. It all fits now; has for years. Maybe a little woodworking elf took care of it for me.

I'm of the opinion that the cap iron works best in conjunction with an appropriate mouth opening for the task. My jack plane doesn't have anything close to a wide-open mouth. I can't physically take a shaving thick enough in any configuration to require a wide-open mouth. Some of you may be able to, but I doubt for an extended period of time. I like the amount of material my jack can remove in one pass. I feel in control and not like I'm trying to hold back a rabid beaver. In taking 4/4 rough stock down to 7/8s or 3/4 finished there isn't really an overriding need to gratuitously hog off material and certainly not if doing so requires one to stop well short because of all the damage and tear out. The last thing I want to find myself doing is having to remove a sixteenth of an inch with a dinky smoothing plane to get below damage because I jacked the wood half to death and left a trail of devastation in an effort to be "fast." I did that once. I learned from it. That's not smart woodworking in my opinion. Trying to be "fast" has made for a lot of long days in my shop.

[steven c newman]

Everyone has a preference for how much "work" they want to do. I haven't a time clock in the shop, and don't mind a little extra time doing something,,
349176
When I have a panel that needs planed down flat, a cambered jack can do the job in about the time it takes to type this post...followed by a "try plane"
349177
To get all the "high" spots down. Smooth? No, but flat enough that I can mark out a top's edges, and cut it to shape..
349178
And THEN I can work on getting things smooth..
349179
But,,,I tend to use a size of plane based on the size of the work. I can come back, and fine tune the smoothiness with a "dinky" smooth plane, if needed..
349180
Quite a change from what was resawn down from 8/4 stock...
349181

[Charles Guest]

My use of the word "dinky" shouldn't be construed negatively. I love 'em, just not for removing bulk and/or damage that I never should have inflicted in the first place.

[Jim Koepke]

Trying to be "fast" has made for a lot of long days in my shop.

I have witnessed this in many work places and many types of work. Working fast is not really working efficiently nor is it a guarantee of quality or getting a job done right.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

The kind of work you describe Charles, is what I usually do with my tryplane, a 23" long wooden plane with mild camber and straight capiron. The jackplane is for the rough stuff I seem to end up with usually. Badly twisted and cupped and way too thick. For small stuff I often do all the work with one plane, a coffin smoother or a Stanley #4. Maybe I should learn to wield an axe.

[Mike Holbrook]

So back to the OP's original question. I am trying to figure out the best plane set ups for removing 1/4-1 inch of wood from 1x1" and 2x2" stock up to 30" long. I am working on raised panels made from glued up 1x1" lumber SYP and 2x2 red oak for legs.

My experience with this work so far suggests that I might not need as much camber as I started out thinking I would. The camber on my # 5 1/2 Custom Veritas plane currently is more like 1/16" or less ( on a 2 3/8" wide blade) at the highest point. Like others are mentioning I am torn between whether to try and use a much more cambered plane and then have to work the ridges out and smooth the remaining surface or use a less cambered plane and just live with the fact that it isn't removing as much wood as fast? Fast is a tricky term. I am not concerned that I might have to spend a few more say up to 15-20 minuets more, but hours more...?

I plan to do more chair legs and raised panels so I am trying to optimize the planes I plan to use for this specific work. I am choosing these two example because I also think they are representative of other work I plan to do.

[Charles Guest]

So back to the OP's original question. I am trying to figure out the best plane set ups for removing 1/4-1 inch of wood from 1x1" and 2x2" stock up to 30" long. I am working on raised panels made from glued up 1x1" lumber SYP and 2x2 red oak for legs.

My experience with this work so far suggests that I might not need as much camber as I started out thinking I would. The camber on my # 5 1/2 Custom Veritas plane currently is more like 1/16" or less ( on a 2 3/8" wide blade) at the highest point. Like others are mentioning I am torn between whether to try and use a much more cambered plane and then have to work the ridges out and smooth the remaining surface or use a less cambered plane and just live with the fact that it isn't removing as much wood as fast? Fast is a tricky term. I am not concerned that I might have to spend a few more say up to 15-20 minuets more, but hours more...?

I plan to do more chair legs and raised panels so I am trying to optimize the planes I plan to use for this specific work. I am choosing these two example because I also think they are representative of other work I plan to do.

A sixteenth to a fat sixteenth of curve is all you need on a standard No. 5. If you use a plane with a wider iron then go up to an eighth.

[Brian Holcombe]

Use a hatchet and follow that up with a jack plane.

[Mike Holbrook]

Charles I think we are getting down to realities here. I have to ask if you got the camber size you suggest for the typically 2" blade on a #5 vs the 2 2/8" blade on my #5 1/2 backwards? I think you would want less camber on the wider blade, as the wider blade takes off a wider shaving and will be harder to push.

I like the wider blade of the #5 1/2 for making raised panels as the surface being planed ends up being close to 1 3/4" wide. It seems to allow me to take a little more off either side as the raised edge emerges. Then the question returns back to whether on a 2 3/8" blade with, maybe we call it a mediocre camber, will the CB: help, make things worse, not actually do anything even if I have it optimally placed....?

[steven c newman]

None of my 2-3/8" wide irons have any camber ( maybe right at the corners) I have three 2" wide irons for my three jack planes.....8" radius, a very slight camber, and a corners only.....

I have no camber on the Junior jack ( M-F No.11 ) as I use it a lot for both jointing small stuff, and as a long smoother.

Actually, I do have a "Scrub-Jack" with a more deeper bite from the camber. So, that gives me 4 in the #5 size planes. Depending on how fast and rough I want to go, I can pick the plane for the job. Already set up and ready to go.

I have had a lot of rough stock come through the shop. And more than a few panel glue ups that needed scrubbed to flat. then there have been a few where the saw marks were the only things needed to be removed. Like when I resaw stock down.

A Stanley #40 needed no chipbreaker.......nor does my Windsor #33 scrub plane.

[Charles Guest]

Charles I think we are getting down to realities here. I have to ask if you got the camber size you suggest for the typically 2" blade on a #5 vs the 2 2/8" blade on my #5 1/2 backwards? I think you would want less camber on the wider blade, as the wider blade takes off a wider shaving and will be harder to push.

I like the wider blade of the #5 1/2 for making raised panels as the surface being planed ends up being close to 1 3/4" wide. It seems to allow me to take a little more off either side as the raised edge emerges. Then the question returns back to whether on a 2 3/8" blade with, maybe we call it a mediocre camber, will the CB: help, make things worse, not actually do anything even if I have it optimally placed....?

More camber on the wider blade... mass of plane makes the effort about equal IMO. Could be just a 'feel' thing though.

[Jim Koepke]

So back to the OP's original question. I am trying to figure out the best plane set ups for removing 1/4-1 inch of wood from 1x1" and 2x2" stock up to 30" long. I am working on raised panels made from glued up 1x1" lumber SYP and 2x2 red oak for legs.



When 1/4" or more stock needs to be removed my bandsaw gets to do the work. On smaller stock a handsaw can do it with a lot less work than using a plane.

1" is a lot to knock down with a hand plane.

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Use a hatchet and follow that up with a jack plane.

Or a drawknife and then a jack.

[Mike Holbrook]

Brian, I guess you are mentioning the axe for chair legs? Axe might work as the drawknives and spokeshaves have a problem with hard dry wood. May need to work on my axe skills.

Steve I am a little confused with the statements you make above as the picture of the camber you showed earlier in the thread looks to be more than the 7-8" radius I have on my Stanley 5 1/4 with a smaller blade.

Jim I was thinking maybe as much as 1" removed from a 2/2" piece of stock to make a tapered octagonal chair leg, still a bunch of wood to remove but not like taking a 2x2 down to a 1x2. I have used a bandsaw to remove larger amounts of wood for chair seats and legs, especially if there are more than a couple to do. I have been doing a few chair legs and panels by hand with planes to get better at removing wood faster and to toughen the skin on my hands up after some allergy issues with my skin. Still playing around with which methods work best for me. At the moment my bandsaw is at our new home and I am working on projects at the old home.

[Brian Holcombe]

I use a Bowie knife in the place of a hatchet, it works fine on dried hardwoods, a lot faster then planing.

Sometimes you have to put down the pick axe and start with a stick of dynamite.

[steven c newman]

The Stanley N0.5
349250
The cambered iron in the above picture is from the scrub-jack, I had it out for it's annual sharpening and tune up. It does have about an 8-9" radius
The iron in the #5c in this post was as bought. I merely sharpened the existing camber.
A Stanley No. 5 (smooth sole) I also have, has just the corners done.
A Millers Falls No. 14 has a smooother's straight edge iron.

The Windsor #33 has a 3" camber, as the plane is about a smallish #3 size.

I might stack the jacks up, to show & tell just how they are set up. Maybe when I can get back down to the shop.....
Edit: A stack of Jacks and a scrub..
349251
From the bottom up: Stanley #5-1/2, Corsair C-5, a pair of Stanley #5s, a Millers Falls #14, and the Windsor #33
349252
Same order of planes, showing the cambers, or lack of camber ( and a wee bit of rust) I got a bit closer to show the edges, had to take two pictures to get then all in..
349253
Scrub is a H-F model, with a 3" ( more or less) radius camber. Hope this clears things up.....unless one wants to see where each chipbreaker is.....

[Mike Holbrook]

Steve Voigt,

I read the older thread on cambering CB's again this AM. I did find a series of videos Paul Sidener linked to, The English Woodworker series on YouTube. He does three videos on cambers, shaping them, setting the CB's up, methods for adjusting the CB (tapping them into exact position sort of like Derek illustrates on his site)...The information in that video shaped my thinking on cambers and CB placement and I just could not remember where I had seen it. I am bookmarking it this time, so all I have to do next time is search through all my bookmarks...Richard's accent is heavy and my hearing is not the best so it takes a while to ferret out the ideas but it was/is helpful. So thanks for the redirect Steve.

Richard's idea is to set the CB an appropriate distance from the corners of the camber for the size shaving being taken. Makes sense to me, to set the distance relative to the edges/corners of the camber. Richard cambers all his blades like I do but does not typically use very large cambers like scrubs are typically set for. Often scrub blades, without CBs, do not take full advantage of the width of the blade as the camber is so dramatic. Certainly many people are successful with their scrubs but they do make sizable ridges that have to be removed. At this point in my developing skill set I find a point of diminishing returns with cambers that large, certainly the effort it takes to push them through the wood can be an issue.

I promise to wait at least a week before making another post on cambers and chip breakers:D

[Steve Voigt]

Steve Voigt,

[Snip]

I promise to wait at least a week before making another post on cambers and chip breakers:D

Mike,

There's nothing wrong with posting about this stuff, as long as we all understand that the purpose of posting is to jawbone, socialize, argue, procrastinate--but not to actually solve any woodworking problems. Because you won't find answers to these types of questions by starting yet another thread or buying yet another video, book, or monthly subscription. The place you'll find the answers is in your shop.

The video by Richard Maguire is good because its message can be summarized on a fortune cookie: set the corners of the cap iron at the edge of the blade. It's not the only way to solve this problem, but it's a good one, because it's dirt simple. Similarly, everything that needs to be written about the topic of this thread, cambering your (BD) irons, can be summarized on a postcard: camber the jack iron about a sixteenth, the try iron about a 64th, and the smoother iron as little as needed to avoid plane tracks. That's it.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and actually doing these things is more complicated, but they don't need to be put into words (and in many cases can't be); they just need to be learned with hands and eyes, and lots of practice.

[ken hatch]

Mike,

There's nothing wrong with posting about this stuff, as long as we all understand that the purpose of posting is to jawbone, socialize, argue, procrastinate--but not to actually solve any woodworking problems. Because you won't find answers to these types of questions by starting yet another thread or buying yet another video, book, or monthly subscription. The place you'll find the answers is in your shop.

The video by Richard Maguire is good because its message can be summarized on a fortune cookie: set the corners of the cap iron at the edge of the blade. It's not the only way to solve this problem, but it's a good one, because it's dirt simple. Similarly, everything that needs to be written about the topic of this thread, cambering your (BD) irons, can be summarized on a postcard: camber the jack iron about a sixteenth, the try iron about a 64th, and the smoother iron as little as needed to avoid plane tracks. That's it.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and actually doing these things is more complicated, but they don't need to be put into words (and in many cases can't be); they just need to be learned with hands and eyes, and lots of practice.

Steve,

I think that is known as cutting to the chase:). Now if I can get this tired old body off the floor and stop laughing I will head to the shop and finish truing a couple of boards with a Jack, Try, and Smoother.

ken

[Chris Fournier]

To my way of thinking, in my shop cambered blades are all about rapid stock removal. My scrub plane has a pretty extreme camber and I'd be lucky to peel off shavings as wide as my thumb and those would be about a 1/16" thick and require plenty of horsepower in anything from poplar to the harder woods, hard maple on up would be pretty much impossible cherry and walnut doable. I don't want tearout at this stage as it can be horrendous so I pay attention to where it occurs and change my attack. All of my benchplanes are sharpened flat with faintly eased corners, I've never found an advantage to having them any different.

[Jim Koepke]

Of course, the devil is in the details, and actually doing these things is more complicated, but they don't need to be put into words (and in many cases can't be); they just need to be learned with hands and eyes, and lots of practice.

One of the details often overlooked in these long jawboning sessions is we all work different species of wood.

The soft western firs or alder often found in my shop will need a different 'angle of attack' compared to maple, cherry, walnut, Southern Yellow Pine or just about any of the other woods commonly used by others.

There is no 'one size fits all' approach imo.

jtk

[bridger berdel]

I am torn between whether to try and use a much more cambered plane and then have to work the ridges out and smooth the remaining surface or use a less cambered plane and just live with the fact that it isn't removing as much wood as fast? Fast is a tricky term. I am not concerned that I might have to spend a few more say up to 15-20 minuets more, but hours more...?

I plan to do more chair legs and raised panels so I am trying to optimize the planes I plan to use for this specific work. I am choosing these two example because I also think they are representative of other work I plan to do.



Try picking up a smaller plane and setting it up with an aggressive camber. Use it with a sharp blade with the chipbreaker pulled way back, or nonexistent. Set it for a fairly shallow cut at first then as the work progresses and you get the feel of it deepen the cut until either the amount of push required starts to go up markedly or the amount of tearout starts to go up markedly. Back off from there a bit. Unless you are using this to make the whole board thinner (better done by resawing) don't work the entire board. Use straight edges and winding sticks to identify the high spots and work them down. When you get close, perhaps 3/4 of the board has scrub plane tool marks switch to a longer plane with much less camber.

The small plane set up as a scrub will have a narrower sole, better matching the narrower bit of heavily cambered blade projecting at the center of the mouth. The short sole is a better match for what is essentially a local small area process, hogging off high points. The lighter body is a better match for a planing operation requiring a bit of muscle.

Stanley and others made a dedicated scrub, #40 I think. It has a narrow, short sole and no chipbreaker. It goes for silly collector prices on ebay. The harbor freight #3 size plane will work fine for the purpose with an aggressive camber ground to the cutter. I'd recommend against making a scrub out of a good quality #3. They make really nice smoothers.

[Patrick Chase]

I am interested in how other posters set chip breakers (CBs) on their more heavily cambered plane blades. I am specifically interested in where posters place the CB in relation to the camber in the blade. I tend to move the CB right up to the edge of the corners of the blade. The edge of the CB is even with or slightly behind the edge of the camber at either side/corner of the curve the camber makes in the blade. This CB placement leaves the camber protruding out past the edge of the CB every where but at the edge/corner of the blade.

The purpose of a close-set cap iron is to prevent tearout during medium and fine cuts, which are typically on the order of 5 mils deep (a bit more for jointing and possibly much less for smoothing). Significant camber in the sense of a circular edge profile is counterproductive in those applications as it causes you to take a cut that's either deeper or narrower than ideal.

In other words, the planes on which I use camber either lack a cap iron (scrubs) or have it set well back (jacks configured for roughing).

I do curve the edges of my smoothers' irons by several mils to preven tracking, by applying pressure over each corner during honing (I'll never call that "relief" again after our last go-round here). In those cases I typically set the cap iron extremely close to the blade corners. Note that if the corners are retracted into the sole such that they won't cut, then there's no reason why you couldn't set the cap iron *below* the corners. I've seen several people do that.

[Stewie Simpson]

Cambering the cap iron. What an innovative idea. You could even try honing a really sharp edge on the said cap iron and adopt a totally new practice of retracting the actual blade instead of the cap iron. Mr Yamamoto, or whatever his name was that produced that video over 10yrs ago on a closely set cap iron would be most interested in hearing the results..

[Patrick Chase]

Cambering the cap iron. What an innovative idea. You could even try honing a really sharp edge on the said cap iron and adopt a totally new practice of retracting the actual blade instead of the cap iron. Mr Yamamoto, or whatever his name was that produced that video over 10yrs ago on a closely set cap iron would be most interested in hearing the results..

The threaded view says you're replying to my post here, but I never suggested cambering the cap iron. It's generally a good idea to read before you reply...

[Jim Koepke]

The threaded view says you're replying to my post here, but I never suggested cambering the cap iron. It's generally a good idea to read before you reply...

It only seems logical if you didn't mention cambering the cap iron he must be replying to someone who did or the idea in general.

It has been my experience the software running this site has as much to do with such confusions as the participants.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

Steve remarks
"The video by Richard Maguire is good because its message can be summarized on a fortune cookie: set the corners of the cap iron at the edge of the blade. It's not the only way to solve this problem, but it's a good one, because it's dirt simple. Similarly, everything that needs to be written about the topic of this thread, cambering your (BD) irons, can be summarized on a postcard: camber the jack iron about a sixteenth, the try iron about a 64th, and the smoother iron as little as needed to avoid plane tracks. That's it."

I appreciate your condensing this information and I understand your frustration at discussing it rather than working it out in the shop. Still it seems to have taken this many posts and this length of discussion to get down to how much camber is reasonable to use for the kind of work I am doing. Like Jim mentions above we all use different woods and have unique situations. I may be unique among posters here, as I am not looking for a dead flat surface on a large percentage of my work. I actually want to see tool marks as I feel they are part of hand made work and they are consistent with the rougher style furniture I want to build to go in a "rustic" log home.

In regard to the videos I was talking about by Richard (The English Woodworker), he does three separate videos, just on setting chip breakers (CBs). The point I got from Richard's videos was the distance the camber extends past the corners of CB needs to be adjusted in very small increments that correspond to the thickness of shaving one is taking.

Bridger, I tried to relate my remarks to two specific planes that I have been working with recently, #5 1/2 & #4 Veritas Custom planes. I tried to relate those planes two specific sizes of two species of wood. I have a plane set up as a scrub but I was trying to relate discussion to specific work to get more specific about how to set up planes for that work.

If we are not here to get better at using hand tools for specific work I am wondering what the point of the forum is? Do some feel this forum should only be used to post pictures of work in progress and finished work? I am not trying to be sarcastic I am genuinely interested in what people think. I can understand the point that endless discussion without any production of work might be considered pointless but I can also see how people with less experience might be reluctant to post their work here as they might feel the bar is often quite high.

[Brian Holcombe]

Mike,

Add camber to the blade until it acts how you would like it to act (clean deep cuts, clean shallow cuts, etc).

It depends on so much including the wood you cut and your ability or want to push the plane with a given resistance.

I think these things should be discussed, but I think comments like Steve's bring it back to earth and make the point that these things are subjective and often times a lot is made of a little.

Personally I'd like to see topics explored outside of sharpening and cap iron setting.

[steven c newman]

Like maybe cutting box joints?

[Jim Koepke]

Personally I'd like to see topics explored outside of sharpening and cap iron setting.


Like maybe cutting box joints?

Yes, I would like to know techniques for hand cutting box joints.

Also good would be a discussion on techniques for better dovetails.

[Steve Voigt]

I appreciate your condensing this information and I understand your frustration at discussing it rather than working it out in the shop.

Mike, I think you read things into my post that weren't there. I have no frustration at all. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with posting about this stuff. Anyone can post whatever they want, and if I don't find it interesting, I'll just pass it by. I assume plenty of people do the same with my posts, which are probably pretty boring if you're not into planemaking. My point was solely that this thread is not going to solve the problem you're working on. It's perfectly fine to talk about it; just understand that the discussion is of limited practical value.

[Steve Voigt]

Also good would be a discussion on techniques for better dovetails.

Absolutely. We need lots more discussion of dovetails. I cut the tails first, and anyone who starts with pins is WRONG. What do you guys think? :p

#satire #justkidding #pleasenomoredovetails

[steven c newman]

I tend to make the pins first, and I wind up with better fitting joints, that way......;)

How does one tell the difference when cutting box joints? Which "pin" goes first?:rolleyes:

Last few box project I have done? Anyone learn anything from them? ( including me?:confused:)

[steven c newman]

Perhaps a series on the care and use of a Bisaique? Aka, The Carpenter's Plane?