Question About Bevel Up Planes and Chipbreakers

[Mark R Webster]

I have always used bevel down planes with the associated chipbreaker and with very difficult woods adjusted the chipbreaker down to minimize tearout. Can anyone explain to me why a bevel up works without a chipbreaker. I realize you couldn't really add one with the bevel up, but if the bevel up works without a chipbreaker why do you need one for a bevel down plane? Thanks

[Derek Cohen]

Mark

To control tearout on a BD plane, the chipbreaker is moved to a closed up position. The chipbreaker bends the shaving, pushing it back into the wood, and this reduces the distance the cut is made ahead of the blade edge.

To control tearout on a BU plane, the cutting angle is increased. When the angle is high enough (around 55 degrees), the cut moves from a shear to a scraping mode. Again, the cut is made at the edge of the blade rather than allowing it to form ahead of the blade, when it will tear (= tearout).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Like Derek explained , a BU plane controls tearout via the cutting angle (bedding angle + sharpening angle).

Both approaches work, high cutting angle or close set chipbreaker to combat tearout. According to my not so humble opinion, the chipbreaker approach is better. A high cutting angle asks for more pushing power, and the edge will wear out sooner. When you do most of your dimensiong with machines and you are only removing planner riples, then the point is probably pretty mood. But when you are dimensioning by hand, then a couple of nice wooden planes, bedded at 45 degrees with chipbreakers are optimal. Antique Stanleys with their lighter weight castings are a good second when you wax the soles of your planes regularly.

[Mark R Webster]

Thanks guys, your explanation, of the higher angle replacing the need for a chip breaker is helpful. I am still a little confused though. The Stanley bench plane is cutting at a 45° angle… the bevel up at 12° + 25°… so 37°. So the bevel up plane without changing the iron (bevel) is cutting at a lower angle right? In general wouldn’t the Stanley perform better with potentially less tear out? (not talking about end grain here) I understand the ease in changing the cutting angle with the bevel up versus the fixed frog angle of a Stanley for difficult grain. But, wouldn’t one expect that in the “stock” formats (without altering the iron), the Stanley would perform a bit better in more difficult woods?

[Derek Cohen]

You have to compare apples with apples. The stock Stanley, with a cutting angle of 45 degrees, and used without the chipbreaker, will have a higher cutting angle than a BU plane with a 25 degree bevel (12+25=37 degrees). No one should use a BU plane this way, and so this comparison is meaningless.

Set up the BU for interlocked timber, and you are likely to add a 50 degree secondary bevel for a cutting angle of 62 degrees. That will blow away a Stanley without a closed up chipbreaker. The Stanley only comes alive, in this situation, when the chipbreaker is closed up. The use of chipbreakers was largely forgotten up until 2012, when the forums began exploring it again. BU planes were very dominant around that time because they work well on interlocked grain (as long as the cutting angle is high). For some they are still preferred as the bevel is easier to hone high than setting a closed up chipbreaker.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mark R Webster]

"No one should use a BU plane this way, and so this comparison is meaningless"
Hi Derek, please don't take this as a challenge to what you are saying that is not my intention (I am just trying to understand). If the bevel up is not intended to be used with a 25° bevel, why is it sold with one. Is it because it is primarily intended to be used on end grain and secondarily side grain with a higher angled bevel. Do you personally use a bevel down plane for your side grain work and reserve the BU for end grain or with a modified bevel for difficult side grain?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Mark

I hope my post did not come across as aggresive. That was not my intension.

Up until about 4 years ago, my go to type plane was a BU, as I needed high cutting angles for the wood I work with. Today I prefer BD planes with chipbreakers. The BU planes are still used, but mainly with lower cutting angles on end grain and cross grain.

The reason BU plane comes with a 25 degree bevel is for end grain. This is how they were originally offered, such as with the original Stanley #62. Add your own higher secondary for face grain.

Even BD planes often come with 25 degree primary bevels. They should not be used at this angle, but with a minimum of 30 degrees for longevity.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mark R Webster]

Thanks for your clarification it make perfect sense to me now. I appreciate expertise!
Mark

[Prashun Patel]

I will also add that if you do not work in difficult woods then the original bevel in a bu plane may work just fine when sharp.

[Mark R Webster]

Yes I have experienced that as well Prashun thanks. This thread has be enlightening for me.

[Bill Houghton]

Mark,

You might find it helpful to see what books your local library has on the subject of hand tool woodworking. Most of the classic books, and many of the new ones, cover the question of why there are low-angle bevel-up planes, among many other topics. Although it's unlikely your library will have it in stock, there's a British book, "Planecraft," now out of print (the original, anyway; there's a remake) as far as I know but still available (about $6 on the online site where I just looked), that addresses a lot of these questions. The original, by Hampton and Clifford, is better, mostly, than the remake by John Sainsbury; but they're both pretty good. With the original, you do have to be comfortable with between-the-wars British phrasing and word choices; if you find that challenging, go for the Sainsbury remake.

I feel like a broken record sometimes; and I know not everyone learns by reading. But books by knowledgeable authors offer you a more comprehensive look at any given subject than about any other source besides a long apprenticeship in the trade (and even formal apprenticeships involve a lot of reading, or traditionally did, anyhow).

Once you're grounded in the theory, of course, nothing beats putting the tools to work, where you'll find out why the "rules" exist, and when you can violate them.

Bill

[Mark R Webster]

Thanks Bill... sound advice!!

[Todd Stock]

The Stanley only comes alive, in this situation, when the chipbreaker is closed up. The use of chipbreakers was largely forgotten up until 2012, when the forums began exploring it again.

If I could offer an edit, insert 'by some' between 'forgotten' and 'up until...'

[Stewie Simpson]

A bevel down high angle approach also works well at controlling tear-out on interlocking grain. But not all types of wood will behave the same. What may work at 50 degrees may not be enough to control tear-out on wood with a higher density and Janka. By adding a 10 degree back bevel on the following 50 degree York Pitch single iron wooden smoothing plane, the effective approach angle was increased to 60 degree Cabinet Pitch. It worked a treat.


http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/Acier%20Fondu%20Smoothing%20Plane%2001/_DSC0083_zps0c6ze5uu.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/Acier%20Fondu%20Smoothing%20Plane%2001/_DSC0083_zps0c6ze5uu.jpg.html)

[Mark R Webster]

Very nice!!:)

[Chris Parks]

The use of chipbreakers was largely forgotten up until 2012, when the forums began exploring it again.

And that is the bit I don't understand. All the planes I watched my Grandfather and Father use had chipbreakers they being the generic Stanley design. Is it better to say that it was not understood enough to be fully utilised or am I totally off the track.

[David Eisenhauer]

Probably on track. Perhaps, as more folks moved towards power tools/equipment, there were less older-more experienced hand tool users around to pass the knowledge of most efficient chip breaker setup and the knowledge slowly receded into semi obscurity.

[Derek Cohen]

Chris, you were very fortunate to learn your woodworking from family members who were knowledgeable in this regard. For those of us, such as myself, who are largely self-taught, gaining information from books, magazines and videos, there was absolutely minimal input from these sources in the last several decades. The use of the chipbreaker appears to have been a lost art. There was much discussion on the forums around 2012, with the result that this age-old technique was "re-discovered". Of course, some had been using it all along, and did not know what the fuss was about. Others will say they knew all along, but I think they are talking porkies. For myself, I had little appreciation, relying on high cutting angles on both BD and BU planes (which still work - and for many there is no need to stop using them). I find it interesting that I apparently knew about the chipbreaker from a post I discovered making in 2005 or so. However, I did not know how to actually set it up (that is, how close it needed to be in practice), and so gave up on it as it did not work. I am sure there were others who experienced this as well. The later discussions provided the needed details. You were lucky to get this first hand.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

And that is the bit I don't understand. All the planes I watched my Grandfather and Father use had chipbreakers they being the generic Stanley design. Is it better to say that it was not understood enough to be fully utilised or am I totally off the track.

Derek's statement needs to be in context to make sense:


Set up the BU for interlocked timber, and you are likely to add a 50 degree secondary bevel for a cutting angle of 62 degrees. That will blow away a Stanley without a closed up chipbreaker. The Stanley only comes alive, in this situation, when the chipbreaker is closed up. The use of chipbreakers was largely forgotten up until 2012, when the forums began exploring it again.

Here he is discussing controlling tear out in difficult woods. Many woodworkers didn't know the nuances of setting a chip breaker to counter tear out until the subject came up recently on woodworking forums.

This is likely due to a break in the chain of old time woodworkers teaching those new to the craft. Of course people still used chip breakers, they just didn't understand how to set them for optimum results.

Many like myself didn't know it was working or how it worked in the overall scheme of things, we just set it where we did because of what someone may have told us. Likewise at the time when a friend asked I told them to set it close to the edge like at 1/32 or less for a smoother. Some empirical data derived from tests indicate it may be helpful to set it in the 0.004" area.

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

To further confuse things :) I have one plane that is bevel down, single iron with a 36 degree bedding angle. To make things even more confusing still, I have cut reversing grain with it without tearout. :D

That said, my go to is a double iron plane which when well set has the best balance of surface finish and tear out control. My opinion is that it is best to take an approach which utilizes the lowest effective angle reasonably possible, in most cases for me that is 45 degrees with a chip breaker.

A great amount of credit is due to Warren Mickley for the resurgence of use and understanding of the chip breaker in western planes. I am certain that I would not have the understanding of chip breakers that I currently do without Warren's influence.

[lowell holmes]

In bevel up planes, you can have different irons ground to different bevels if it suits you. I also have a extra iron and breaker for
my no.3 Bailey. It is 1 3/4" wide and has a pronounced radius on the cutting edge. It functions as a scrub plane in that mode.

[Derek Cohen]

my go to is a double iron plane which when well set has the best balance of surface finish and tear out control. My opinion is that it is best to take an approach which utilizes the lowest effective angle reasonably possible, in most cases for me that is 45 degrees with a chip breaker.

My go to jointer is a Veritas Custom #7. This is a BD plane, and mine has a 40 degree frog. The low cutting angle together with a closed up chipbreaker planes both interlocked face/edge grain and end grain equally well. One setting for all possibilities.

The lower cutting angle, does leave a better surface on many (but not all) woods. The smoothers I use mostly are a Veritas Custom #4 with a 42 degree frog (the decision to get this lower frog was influenced by Warren's modified Stanley), and a LN #3 with a 45 degree frog. What is evident is that the lower the bed angle, the more finicky it is to set up the chipbreaker. All becomes easier with practice.

Special mention must go to David Weaver, who provided a great deal of input and an article in WoodCentral archives. And Kees, who made a great video around that time. Perhaps Kees will chip in here as well.

As Jim, above, has noted, the value of the high cutting angle (whether on a BU or a BD plane) is to control tearout. The definition of a high cutting angle varies from country to country in line with the degree of interlocked timber found there. In the USA, a high cutting angle is around 50-55 degrees. In Australia, anything under 60 degrees is a waste of time.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

I don't think I have much to add. I think most people were aware, somehow, that a chipbreaker was supposed to break chips and prevent tearout. But I also think most people didn't quite know how to make it work. For me personally the Kato video was also an eye opener: "That close?" I was experimenting at that time, but still hadn't found the optimum setting.

Moving the chipbreaker 0.1 to 0.2 mm closer to the edge was such a revelation. Like David Weaver I immediately felt the need to reach out to everyone on the planet who owned a double iron plane. I am afraid quite a few people got pretty sick of us at that time :D

[Stewie Simpson]

To further confuse things :) I have one plane that is bevel down, single iron with a 36 degree bedding angle. To make things even more confusing still, I have cut reversing grain with it without tearout. :D

Brian; the above statement is a prime example of why we should continue to question what is stated as fact on woodwork forums.

[Warren Mickley]

And that is the bit I don't understand. All the planes I watched my Grandfather and Father use had chipbreakers they being the generic Stanley design. Is it better to say that it was not understood enough to be fully utilised or am I totally off the track.

I have promoted the double iron on three Internet fora since becoming active around 2006. The problem was the people who pretended expertise and vigorously denounced the practice, even calling it a "marketing hoax". I had people calling me names and questioning my integrity. The use of the double iron takes skill and judgement any many were quick to give up despite extensive historical evidence.

I started using the double iron in 1973 after reading historical references. I visited a plane expert in 1980 who said "chipbreaker is a misnomer because it is really just a blade stiffener." I was so shocked I did not know what to say, but this was a common attitude for more than a generation.

[Brian Holcombe]

My go to jointer is a Veritas Custom #7. This is a BD plane, and mine has a 40 degree frog. The low cutting angle together with a closed up chipbreaker planes both interlocked face/edge grain and end grain equally well. One setting for all possibilities.

The lower cutting angle, does leave a better surface on many (but not all) woods. The smoothers I use mostly are a Veritas Custom #4 with a 42 degree frog (the decision to get this lower frog was influenced by Warren's modified Stanley), and a LN #3 with a 45 degree frog. What is evident is that the lower the bed angle, the more finicky it is to set up the chipbreaker. All becomes easier with practice.

Special mention must go to David Weaver, who provided a great deal of input and an article in WoodCentral archives. And Kees, who made a great video around that time. Perhaps Kees will chip in here as well.

As Jim, above, has noted, the value of the high cutting angle (whether on a BU or a BD plane) is to control tearout. The definition of a high cutting angle varies from country to country in line with the degree of interlocked timber found there. In the USA, a high cutting angle is around 50-55 degrees. In Australia, anything under 60 degrees is a waste of time.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I do certainly agree about David and Kees! They deserve a great deal of credit with helping to bring everything to light on the forums.

Many, including yourself would likely find my above comment to be curious since the majority of the planing that I do is with Japanese Kanna, bedded in their majority at 38 degrees with exception to the special case mentioned. At a 38 degrees one must be especially careful about both sharpness and how well the chip breaker is adjusted in harder woods.

I've planned curly bubinga with this 38 degree bed, without tearout, but it's a challenge to say the least.

For my typical cabinet woods, like walnut, white oak, cherry, etc. I use 45 degree bedded planes as often or more often than kanna since I can do so with more assurance. That is why I feel that 45 degrees and a well set chip breaker are a very well balanced approach. I do regularly plane the aforementioned materials with kanna, but with very very careful attention paid to the chip breaker.

I tend to try and used the most relaxed chip breaker setting possible, so in many cases that is very tightly set but in cases where the grain is well behaved then I back the chip breaker off.

It's been my experience that the softer the wood the more an effect the angle has on surface finish, but this does depend on species; Western Red Cedar for instance is very particular about how it is planed, in every aspect from sharpness to bedding angle. Lower angles also seem to maintain a bright finish as the blade begins to dull, where I can tell very quickly in a 45 degree bed at which point where the initial sharpness has worn off of the plane iron.

[Brian Holcombe]

Brian; the above statement is a prime example of why we should continue to question what is stated as fact on woodwork forums.

There is a dai-ya who participates in the Japanese woodworking Facebook group that I also post in and he has been adamant about the single iron to the point where I guess I could not help myself but cut a dai and give it a shot. With the right iron and very keen sharpness it makes for a wonderful finish.

[Pat Barry]

There is a dai-ya who participates in the Japanese woodworking Facebook group that I also post in and he has been adamant about the single iron to the point where I guess I could not help myself but cut a dai and give it a shot. With the right iron and very keen sharpness it makes for a wonderful finish.
Whats a dai-ya?

[Brian Holcombe]

Japanese plane body maker.

[Jim Koepke]

I started using the double iron in 1973 after reading historical references. I visited a plane expert in 1980 who said "chipbreaker is a misnomer because it is really just a blade stiffener." I was so shocked I did not know what to say, but this was a common attitude for more than a generation.

My recollection is the patent for Baileys chip breaker claimed it was to stiffen thinner blades. The patent statement likely lent some weight to leading so many astray.

As with so many realities in life most folks do not easily give what they believe, even with solid evidence to the contrary.

jtk

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

There was a nice video from David Weaver where he is planing with chipbreaker set too far, then too close and then at optimum distance to plane without tearout. That worth more than any words or books. Unfortunately, I cannot find it anymore (David removed it?). I also saw Kees Heiden video but David's video was more verbose :)

Without buzz on the forums, Veritas Custom planes would not be made the same way as they exist now... and I enjoy them very much. And the knowledge is just invaluable. Grateful, not sick, thanks to you guys.

There was also discussion on some Russian forum that I participated. I was pointed to a Russian book 100 years old that does describe double iron in all details, including this rule for optimum distance. Though, nobody actually tried that or was familiar with.

[Chris Parks]

There was a nice video from David Weaver where he is planing with chipbreaker set too far, then too close and then at optimum distance to plane without tearout. That worth more than any words or books. Unfortunately, I cannot find it anymore (David removed it?). I also saw Kees Heiden video but David's video was more verbose :)

Without buzz on the forums, Veritas Custom planes would not be made the same way as they exist now... and I enjoy them very much. And the knowledge is just invaluable. Grateful, not sick, thanks to you guys.

There was also discussion on some Russian forum that I participated. I was pointed to a Russian book 100 years old that does describe double iron in all details, including this rule for optimum distance. Though, nobody actually tried that or was familiar with.

As great as the internet is there are a lot of internets out there divided into language entities so we can't explore and learn if we don't speak the language.

[Warren Mickley]

As great as the internet is there are a lot of internets out there divided into language entities so we can't explore and learn if we don't speak the language.

We can learn from others even if we don't speak the language. It is nice to have people like Andrey Kharitonkin among us.

When Kees appeared and started participating on a forum that I followed, I asked him about strijk blok, because of my suspicion that the Dutch term is the origin of our strike block plane. Around December 2011 I asked him about the Dutch term for double iron, but he could not get interested. When I asked again six months later, after he had learned to use the double iron, he came up with a term, but said there were no references to the double iron in historic literature. When I came up with an old reference, he got interested and found more himself.

I think a serious researcher of historic woodworking would have to know French because of the wealth of important literature in that language. And at one time when I was researching oil stones I found pre 1700 references to oil stones in seven languages (not that I knew those languages).

By the way Andrey, how do you write double iron and oil stone in Russian? What are the earliest Russian references to these terms that you know?

[Chris Parks]

Warren, as much as you might want to deeply investigate in another language the lack of fluency will stop you. I watch a lot of foreign video but text is beyond me due to no language skills.

[glenn bradley]

And that is the bit I don't understand. All the planes I watched my Grandfather and Father use had chipbreakers they being the generic Stanley design. Is it better to say that it was not understood enough to be fully utilised or am I totally off the track.

I believe Derek is referring to the use of the chip breaker as a result-enhancing part of the tool and not just something to hold the iron down. The chip breakers weren't absent, just not very well used by many folks who used (or tried to use) hand planes. At some point, folks on the forums I visit started to focus on the chip breaker; position, grind, quality, position, position, position . . . :D. People got pretty focused (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdk4uRYioZg) on it.

[Todd Stock]

This baffles me. Common knowledge in a couple of WW communities, including my grandpa's shop and his neighbors ("Set it close for fine work, boy...close yer mouth."), every boatbuilder and interior joiner that I met in Eastport's yards (all ex Trumphy guys), and the folks that were part of the first wave of modern hobbyist hand tool woodworkers that constituted the charter subscribers for and fueled by FWW and Woodenboat. I never jumped on the BU bandwagon, nor did most of the folks I've kept in touch with over the years, so no loss of what a CB is for and use, but I can see the case for lots of folks entered the hobby during the period where some parties were touting the BU plane as a panacea for all ills and a boon for the frugal. Without the need to make old Stanleys or new Records work well, there is certainly a case to be made that the knowledge was never gained and thus not available within that ecosystem. Not suggesting that there are not thought leaders on various fora that educate the membership, but I try not to confuse forums as being representative of the broader community of craftsman...there are many in both woodworking in general and luthier that have opted out of an electronic second life for more time in the shop.

[Chris Parks]

You are saying that no one understood chip breakers before wood working forums happened? What actually happened was people who had no background or formal training in wood working began to realise that chip breakers had a purpose and had not had any experience in fine tuning double iron planes. in that context they assumed they had made a momentous discovery.

[Todd Stock]

I have to wonder who all those improved aftermarket chip breakers which appeared in the late 1980's and later were sold to and why.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

As great as the internet is there are a lot of internets out there divided into language entities so we can't explore and learn if we don't speak the language.

Not so easy, yes. Impossible - no. Some people post in English on foreign forums and get reasonable answers in bad English. Searching for some term is difficult indeed as it might be not in dictionary. But, as Warren said, making international friends helps greatly. Making friends speaking different languages and working in different professions is yet more helpful. Not to forget that living in different countries they can help with buying something that is not available in your country. Possibilities are endless... if only I could have more free time for my curiosity...

Google translator is easy to master. I use it a lot for German. Sometimes I shout swear words while searching in German but eventually I get it.

I mentioned sources in other language because it might be interesting for someone for cross referencing. In that Russian book that was published in 1901 I found many other interesting things. For example:


a picture of kerfing plane
a picture of Veritas Mk1 Honing Guide
American hand tools - Stanley planes, Starrett combination square, Stanley odd jobs
German and English wooden hand planes
sharpening on sanding blocks (known nowadays as "scary sharpening")



reference to sharpening stones - Washita, "Turkish" stones, "Arkansas" and "Mississipy"


After reading it I had impression that nothing is new today.



By the way Andrey, how do you write double iron and oil stone in Russian? What are the earliest Russian references to these terms that you know?

Hey Warren. In that book sharpening chapter is rather small. But it only describes grinder stones and oil stones that I mentioned above (and nothing about water stones). So far, that is the oldest source that I have read. But I can post such question on some forums. My grandparents in country side did very coarse sharpening with grinder stones.

Some translations to Russian:
iron (in cutting tool) = железко
double iron = двойное железко
cap iron = горбатик
chipbreaker = стружколом
blade = лезвие
grinder = точило
sharpening stone = заточной камень
oil sharpening stone = масленный заточной камень

[David farmer]

The first photo is my old Powermatic 180 planer. The second and third are an unusual 2 sided jointer,(Shimohira) I bought after it was left for dead at an industrial trade show in 1992.
I would install two freshly sharpened sets of knives in both machines and face joint a difficult grained board glass smooth only to have the planer produce tear-out on the opposite side of the same board. When the high angle hand plane craze hit, I was sure cutting angle was the explanation for the huge difference in performance. I was confused to find it was identical on both machines.
Two decades later, (chip breaker returns plane craze?) I realized, 1. The japanese machine manufacturers never forgot it's effectiveness and 2. it is just as effective on a machine cutterhead as a hand plane. The chip breaker on the Shimohira is extremely close and is designed so it can only be set up that way. It simply will not produce tear out on anything I've run over it.
I hope the difference is visible in the photographs.
361377
361378
361380

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I have to wonder who all those improved aftermarket chip breakers which appeared in the late 1980's and later were sold to and why.

Todd, there were longest threads on this subject a few years ago. Aftermarket chip breakers have bevel at 30 degree (Stanley chip breaker shape comes about 45 degree). And some had notch for depth adjuster that would not allow to set it close to cutting edge. That is what I've read on forums...

I have complementary thing to wonder about as to how it could happen that in recent years some books and articles in WW magazines were written saying that cap iron is just to "stiffen the iron" and such and nobody dared to correct that. Nobody told Christopher Schwarz, for example, when he wrote in his blog that chipbreaker is just trouble that jams plane's mouth. If knowledgeable people didn't say anything that is the same as they didn't exist at that time and the knowledge was lost to followers... temporary. Double wonder :)

Maybe nobody told to Veritas or Lee-Nielsen plane makers either, I might be wrong but I have impression they also discovered or rediscovered that on the forums :) Some infill plane makers also... Ignorance has to be actively fought.

[Jim Koepke]

Ignorance has to be actively fought.

Some in the grasp of ignorance wish to remain in the zone of comfort ignorance provides.

Others will seek ways out of the zone with a desire to improve their efforts.

jtk

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Some in the grasp of ignorance wish to remain in the zone of comfort ignorance provides.

Others will seek ways out of the zone with a desire to improve their efforts.

jtk

I think in case of chipbreaker quest most of us did alright, just needed the right teacher :)

[Jim Koepke]

I think in case of chipbreaker quest most of us did alright, just needed the right teacher :)

Most did alright. There are still a few holdouts insisting that setting the chip breaker to control tear out is a bunch of hooey. (Sorry for the international readers hooey is a pile of $#!+)

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

David, that has to be unnerving to operate a machine with two cutter heads. That is a good illustration, in fact the video commonly referred to when this topic comes up is actually geared toward super surfacers, slightly different but helps to make the case that the Japanese manufacturers were well aware of the effect of tight set chip breakers. I've seen machinery from Japan that produces an enviable finish and not just in the way of super surfacers.

[Patrick Chase]

You have to compare apples with apples. The stock Stanley, with a cutting angle of 45 degrees, and used without the chipbreaker, will have a higher cutting angle than a BU plane with a 25 degree bevel (12+25=37 degrees). No one should use a BU plane this way, and so this comparison is meaningless.

I'd restate that to "no one should use a BU plane this way for finish-planing difficult woods".

Low cutting angles can be useful to get the glassiest possible surface and/or the most wood removal per unit effort when planing entirely with the grain. They're also useful for working end grain. I keep a BU jack and a BU smoother permanently set up with 37 deg angles for those reasons. I wouldn't recommend that to somebody who didn't already had BD and/or high-angle planes though.

[Todd Stock]

I suspect that few thought to correct the various proponents of recent hand tool fads because fewer and fewer of us subscribe to PW, FWW, etc., and few of the purveyors of scheduled monthly wisdom have much of anything new AND USEFUL to say. We do tend to have segments of the hobby which are driven more by the need to produce magazine or web copy than an understanding of what works and why, while engineering for engineerings's sake is not constrained to luxury German automobiles. Call it 'Fall Fashions for the Woodshop' or manfad, but when I look back over what has come into vogue then faded over the last 40+ years during which we've had some sort of arbiter of orthodoxy for hand tool woodworking, it's apparent that we peaked at some point in 1986. ;)

[Patrick Chase]

People got pretty focused (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdk4uRYioZg) on it.

That's the Kato/Kawai video - it was around for several years before the forums "discovered" it. It's obviously centuries newer than Warren's textual references, but sometimes we all have to be clubbed over the head to finally get clued in.

The ability to practically adopt foreign concepts purely from text is actually more rare than you might think (Warren, that's a compliment. Please take it as such).

[Warren Mickley]

I have complementary thing to wonder about as to how it could happen that in recent years some books and articles in WW magazines were written saying that cap iron is just to "stiffen the iron" and such and nobody dared to correct that. Nobody told Christopher Schwarz, for example, when he wrote in his blog that chipbreaker is just trouble that jams plane's mouth. If knowledgeable people didn't say anything that is the same as they didn't exist at that time and the knowledge was lost to followers... temporary. Double wonder :)

... Ignorance has to be actively fought.


Here are some things I posted on Woodcentral December 6-8, 2007, a few weeks before the Schwarz blog post:

It is the versatility available with a double iron plane that caused craftsmen to switch to double irons in the 18th century.

I have been a full time woodworker using hand tools exclusively for more than 20 years. I have not had a need for sandpaper since 1978. Of course I think highly of 18th century cabinetmakers and tool makers (many were both making their own planes). It is somewhat hurtful to see them disparaged as duped by a marketing gimmick.

My feeling is that anyone who does not see the value of the double iron system probably does not understand how to use it. I know that this puts some people who consider themselves experts into a somewhat lesser category and I apologize for it.

... the double iron is a sophisticated instrument. ... There is no shame in having trouble with it. ...It takes a fair amount of practice to get a good feel for it. I can say that the benefits of learning are well worth the effort and I would not want to be without it.

In response to the Schwarz blog which you mention, I wrote this in Woodnet:

"I have used the double iron for controlling tearout for more than thirty years. It is a sophisticated system requiring practice and judgment. It does not surprise me that many do not have this skill. There is no shame in not knowing how to do it. However the lack of this skill is not something to brag about, as many have done.

"The pole vault record is somewhere around 20 feet, but if you took a bunch of middle aged people and handed each a pole you wouldn't expect much the first day. I can imagine some saying the pole just got in the way, or they could jump higher without it.

" It does surprise me how many were unable to read the information presented by Kato and Elliot. Those who suggested that the setting needed to be within .004" might reread the material."

All these posts were in large well read threads and were hotly contested at the time. I don't much like hearing that "nobody dared to correct" the Schwarz errors.

[William Fretwell]

I do not think for one minute that the use of chip breakers fell into obscurity! The countless planes produced with them did not go away, both old and new.
I do think that chip breakers were poorly manufactured and required considerable tuning to function well. I also think that while the understanding of tear out was generally poor, people did learn to get their chip breakers to work through trial and error.
I think in history people will look back on the brief period of bevel up planes popularity and think we were all working end grain for a living.

[Bill Houghton]

(Sorry for the international readers hooey is a pile of $#!+)

And, in case this usage is not universal across the nations, "$#!+)" or any such combination of symbols (and occasionally letters) is a way of saying, "bad word here." You have to know the idiom to know what bad word would fit in the space. In this case, "pile of XXX" refers an imagined pile of animal waste products.

[Todd Stock]

"If knowledgeable people didn't say anything that is the same as they didn't exist at that time and the knowledge was lost to followers... temporary. Double wonder :)"

No...it means that I was doing something more valuable with my time than arguing fashions in plane irons with editors of hobby magazines. Most forums have at best a few hundred engaged readers and 50 or so that post...let's consider just how tiny a percentage of all woodworkers that might be, then recognize that each forum is a digital island, with little or no communication with those that are a) too busy to participate, b) lack interest, or c) lack the patience. Alfred Korzybski's dictum re: the map not being the territory seems applicable.

[steven c newman]

Unless some were paid a commission to sell those BU planes.....:rolleyes:

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I don't much like hearing that "nobody dared to correct" the Schwarz errors.

Apologies, it seems that we've got what we deserved... in a way. Then nobody dared to ask or to learn how to use double iron. Not until there was some "critical mass" or new fashion, again.

I really just needed David Weaver's video that shows algorithm or rule how to find optimum distance. If it were me who had the knowledge I would take trouble of going somewhere and showing the skill where it would matter... but that is just me.

For me it was very educational as to not blindly believe anything that is written in Internet... really didn't see it coming in woodworking! How could I... probably "professional idiotism".



No...it means that I was doing something more valuable with my time than arguing fashions in plane irons with editors of hobby magazines. Most forums have at best a few hundred engaged readers and 50 or so that post...let's consider just how tiny a percentage of all woodworkers that might be, then recognize that each forum is a digital island, with little or no communication with those that are a) too busy to participate, b) lack interest, or c) lack the patience. Alfred Korzybski's dictum re: the map not being the territory seems applicable.

Understandable, of course... glad that fashion has passed and knowledge remains. All good now.


(Sorry for the international readers hooey is a pile of $#!+)

No problem understanding it, it pays a lot to first learn swear and bad words when learning a foreign language! :) In Russian language there is another language in itself that is purely swearing. We inherited that from "mongols". Some people do manage to use it as their main language. Communicated meaning amazes me with richness and details... It is banned from public domain.