Hand planing white oak.

[Jeff Andresen]

My 4 1/2 smoother seems to produce nice shavings on a piece of cherry. Then I try it on a piece of white oak, tear out city! I could use some help.

[William Fretwell]

Cherry is a lovely easy wood to work with. White oak is a much harder wood. Use a bevel down plane. Narrow the throat of the plane; watch grain direction very carefully, (the most likely cause of tear out).

[Warren Weckesser]

Sharpen the blade. Set the cap iron appropriately for smoothing: https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/cap-irons-tear-out-video/

[Patrick Chase]

My 4 1/2 smoother seems to produce nice shavings on a piece of cherry. Then I try it on a piece of white oak, tear out city! I could use some help.

With a 4-1/2 your best bet is to set the cap iron very close to the edge (as in less than 0.01" from the edge). I'd recommend starting with David Weaver's article on another forum and go from there - Search for "David Weaver cap iron" and you'll find it.

Richard Murphy's video on englishwoodworker is OK, though as Warren Mickley (the other Warren) has pointed out he's off-base on a couple points of cap-iron use. I think that David's article is a more reliable source on balance.

[David Eisenhauer]

A common saying - "sharp fixes everything". Well, it doesn't really fix 100% of everything, but it is always the first thing to do when troubleshooting an issue when working with planes and chisels. That white oak may be tough enough to maybe see what a narrower iron might do. Maybe try a sharpened, close mouthed and correctly set cap iron on a #3 or 4. Light cuts and look out for the grain changes.

[Patrick Chase]

Cherry is a lovely easy wood to work with. White oak is a much harder wood. Use a bevel down plane. Narrow the throat of the plane; watch grain direction very carefully, (the most likely cause of tear out).

Watching grain direction can obviously help with less-than-ideal tool setup, but if you have a properly configured smoother with a close-set cap iron then you can plane in any direction (including directly against the grain) without tearout. That's a handy thing when you have wood with reversing grain, such that individual plane strokes hit multiple directions.

Narrowing down the throat will limit the extent of any tearout, but won't prevent it. What it will do is prevent you from using a truly tight cap-iron set, though, as combining them leads to choking. I'd leave the throat open and focus on the cap iron instead.

[Patrick Chase]

Thanks, Patrick, that's a great article: [link deleted to save the mods some time]

You gotta admit, though, that a gnat's nadger is a bit more entertaining than just 0.01". :)

Posting a link to WC is against SMC terms of service. That's why I posted the search string instead :-).

FWIW my typical set for problem woods is about 0.006", and I've gone as low as 0.0035". I posted a picture of the latter (used on a #3) in another thread here a while back.

EDIT: This thread (https://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?256590-Cap-iron-set).

[William Fretwell]

Watching grain direction can obviously help with less-than-ideal tool setup, but if you have a properly configured smoother with a close-set cap iron then you can plane in any direction (including directly against the grain) without tearout. That's a handy thing when you have wood with reversing grain, such that individual plane strokes hit multiple directions.

Narrowing down the throat will limit the extent of any tearout, but won't prevent it. What it will do is prevent you from using a truly tight cap-iron set, though, as combining them leads to choking. I'd leave the throat open and focus on the cap iron instead.

I always use a tight cap iron on white oak. When you get it working well and change grain direction I find it causes 'pitting' which is just short tear out. If you open the throat the pitting changes to tear out. It also depends how much material you are trying to move how wide the throat and close the cap iron. However when all is working well the thing that mucks it up is grain direction.

[Patrick Chase]

I always use a tight cap iron on white oak. When you get it working well and change grain direction I find it causes 'pitting' which is just short tear out. If you open the throat the pitting changes to tear out. It also depends how much material you are trying to move how wide the throat and close the cap iron. However when all is working well the thing that mucks it up is grain direction.

If opening the throat changes the pitting to tear-out, then the cap-iron wasn't truly set close to begin with. For that matter if you were able to close down the throat without choking then the cap-iron probably wasn't set close to begin with.

Again, we're talking about less than 1/100" of setback to minimize tearout on difficult wood. See David's article.

[lowell holmes]

I always wanted a 4 1/2. Maybe I will look for one.

[Jim Koepke]

Howdy Jeff and a belated welcome to the Creek.

Patrick gives some good advice about learning more on how to set the chip breaker.

Some woods need a plane set for very light shavings to avoid tear out.

If you are in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon let me know if you would like to get together for some help with this. If you can include your locality in your profile you may find another member in your area willing to offer their help.

My #4-1/2 was somewhat of a troublesome plane to use until it was tamed a bit. This was even with most of my work being in soft fir. Fir does have its challenges just like every other piece of wood.

jtk

[William Fretwell]

If opening the throat changes the pitting to tear-out, then the cap-iron wasn't truly set close to begin with. For that matter if you were able to close down the throat without choking then the cap-iron probably wasn't set close to begin with.

Again, we're talking about less than 1/100" of setback to minimize tearout on difficult wood. See David's article.

Yes my cap is set properly. The definitive piece on cap setting is in Japanese from a college. Their microscopic camera looks at no cap and cap setting at various microns, cap angles etc. It explains why the back pressure from the cap is generated and how it works. The best bit is you can see it in real time. Never again will you question cap setting.

The new Clifton's have one piece cap irons which seem identical to Lie Nielson. Their new manufacturer has set an incredible lapping standard for the blade and cap iron. The precision with which you can set the cap is most impressive. Not even wood dust gets between blade and cap!

I've had to resist my tendency to 'tweak everything' by honing it as I would only make it worse! Bought three of their new planes as I expel bevel up from my regular planing and could not be happier. Will post a review some time.

My planes are not set up as scrapers, I like to actually remove wood when I plane. So Patrick I say again, when all is working well it's the grain direction that screws things up.

[Warren Mickley]

I have been using the double iron since 1973. If you can't plane either direction, your plane is not well set up.

[Pat Barry]

I have been using the double iron since 1973. If you can't plane either direction, your plane is not well set up.
Do you just use a single setting for your cap iron setback? Is this because you target a certain shaving thickness? If so, what do you target for the shaving thickness?

[steven c newman]

Mine are set at about 1mm back from the edge. Be aware, White Oak planes way different than most other woods.....ribbons instead of shavings. I usually plane at a skew to the grain...
374422
Ribbons...

374423
At the Skew....
374424
Before any finish was applied...

[Warren Mickley]

Do you just use a single setting for your cap iron setback? Is this because you target a certain shaving thickness? If so, what do you target for the shaving thickness?
We tend to use a tiered approach. That is to say for each plane we tend to have a range of shaving thickness and a corresponding camber that keeps the shaving at near full width at the thickest shaving and somewhat narrower when at its thinnest shaving. Likewise we tend to keep the cap iron in an appropriate range for the thickness we most often use. Then when we are working a piece of wood that falls outside the norms (too hard, too crossgrained or figured, etc.)we make slight adjustments. Usually we are working a piece long enough that we get a feel for it. If we prepare a board or series of boards with jack and trying plane, we know a lot about it by the time we are finishing off with the smoothing plane, so in practice there is little or no adjusting except for when the plane is apart for sharpening.


I went four decades without ever measuring a shaving. I can tell you now that I often use the trying plane in the .001 to .002 range, the smoother in the .0005 to .001 range, and the jointer around .001. The jack plane thickness varies quite a bit depending on species. I have never measured a cap iron setback. I would expect the effective amount to vary by the shape of the cap iron, so numbers are no so helpful.

[Patrick Chase]

Yes my cap is set properly. The definitive piece on cap setting is in Japanese from a college. Their microscopic camera looks at no cap and cap setting at various microns, cap angles etc. It explains why the back pressure from the cap is generated and how it works. The best bit is you can see it in real time. Never again will you question cap setting.

Yes, everybody knows about the Kato/Kawai video these days. David Weaver's article that I referenced in an earlier post goes into that in a fair bit of detail. There is also an earlier German video that shows basically the same thing,



My planes are not set up as scrapers, I like to actually remove wood when I plane. So Patrick I say again, when all is working well it's the grain direction that screws things up.

If the grain direction causes hairs/fuzz with the mouth closed and tearout when you open the mouth, as you described in a previous post, then your setup is poor. You may think it's working well, but that just means that you don't know what's achievable.


I have been using the double iron since 1973. If you can't plane either direction, your plane is not well set up.

I think it fitting that Warren have the last word here. He's right.

[Patrick Chase]

The new Clifton's have one piece cap irons which seem identical to Lie Nielson. Their new manufacturer has set an incredible lapping standard for the blade and cap iron. The precision with which you can set the cap is most impressive. Not even wood dust gets between blade and cap!

In addition to the setback, the angle of the "breaking face" (the part of the cap iron that the shaving first impacts) is also a hugely important variable. While I don't have experience with the new Clifton design the L-N cap irons have a ~25 degree primary bevel which is basically useless for preventing tearout.

These days I use a progressive tip bevel starting at ~55 deg for the first ~1/64" and then gradually decreasing until it meets the cap-iron's primary bevel. That's actually a pretty conservative setup compared to some others. IIRC Warren has estimated that his initial angle is around 80 deg.

Have you reprofiled the leading edge of your Cliftons?

[Normand Leblanc]

I do not have Warren's experience but I'm using the technique that Patrick and him describe for ~3 years and it's absolutely true that, once the capiron is set properly, you can plane against the grain. I have found that anything more than 0.3 mm or 0.01" is too much. I like to be in the range of 0.2 mm with a capiron bevel of ~ 50°.

When I get everything right I can plane very tick shavings against the grain with no tear-outs. I have a difficult to plane board that I keep just to test if I've set it right.

[Pat Barry]

We tend to use a tiered approach. That is to say for each plane we tend to have a range of shaving thickness and a corresponding camber that keeps the shaving at near full width at the thickest shaving and somewhat narrower when at its thinnest shaving. Likewise we tend to keep the cap iron in an appropriate range for the thickness we most often use. Then when we are working a piece of wood that falls outside the norms (too hard, too crossgrained or figured, etc.)we make slight adjustments. Usually we are working a piece long enough that we get a feel for it. If we prepare a board or series of boards with jack and trying plane, we know a lot about it by the time we are finishing off with the smoothing plane, so in practice there is little or no adjusting except for when the plane is apart for sharpening.


I went four decades without ever measuring a shaving. I can tell you now that I often use the trying plane in the .001 to .002 range, the smoother in the .0005 to .001 range, and the jointer around .001. The jack plane thickness varies quite a bit depending on species. I have never measured a cap iron setback. I would expect the effective amount to vary by the shape of the cap iron, so numbers are no so helpful.
Thanks for the detailed explanation Warren. Merry Christmas!

[William Fretwell]

In addition to the setback, the angle of the "breaking face" (the part of the cap iron that the shaving first impacts) is also a hugely important variable. While I don't have experience with the new Clifton design the L-N cap irons have a ~25 degree primary bevel which is basically useless for preventing tearout.

These days I use a progressive tip bevel starting at ~55 deg for the first ~1/64" and then gradually decreasing until it meets the cap-iron's primary bevel. That's actually a pretty conservative setup compared to some others. IIRC Warren has estimated that his initial angle is around 80 deg.

Have you reprofiled the leading edge of your Cliftons?

No, I have not re-profiled my Clifton's I need far more wood time with them. I guess the breaker angle is about 80 deg.

If a plane works equally well with and against the grain then clearly you are not maximising the with the grain efficiency that is available.
If you take thin enough shavings you don't even need a cap iron as the video shows. What you describe is an academic exercise only.

In real work planing when wood has to be lost working with the grain is what wood workers do whenever possible. The last few strokes with a smoother on a piece will always be with the grain for the best finish possible.

[William Fretwell]

Yes, everybody knows about the Kato/Kawai video these days. David Weaver's article that I referenced in an earlier post goes into that in a fair bit of detail. There is also an earlier German video that shows basically the same thing,



If the grain direction causes hairs/fuzz with the mouth closed and tearout when you open the mouth, as you described in a previous post, then your setup is poor. You may think it's working well, but that just means that you don't know what's achievable.



I think it fitting that Warren have the last word here. He's right.

I'm sure 'everybody' including the OP has not seen the video.

I'm sure Warren can plane many woods in both directions, so can I. Difficult grain is a whole different thing, I'm sure some grain is so difficult the direction is meaningless.

[Stewie Simpson]

If you go back to the English Woodworkers video link on the subject and read further down in the comments section Richard has a good message for those that get too engrossed in a tightly set cap iron and wispy thin shavings





http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/20c50688645d8ae5bd617aabae82a7bd?s=80&d=mm

Richard May 11th, 2015 (https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/cap-irons-tear-out-video/#comment-73394)
Warren,
Don’t worry, I left the concerns of tear out behind with puberty. As David said, this is a great topic worth further discussion, but is beyond the scope of this video and this post. I aim for clarity on subjects for my audience so try to cover one point at a time, but I have mentioned previously that I don’t simply class a plane by it’s length but how I’ve chosen to set it up for use. 90% of my work is finished off the try which is set up closely to my smoother (I don’t do any of the whispy, thin gravity defying shavings).
If I’m hogging off material however then I won’t concern myself with the cap iron, I don’t have problems with tear out since I’ll read the wood, make judgement and alter my approach on the fly, but that’s a whole other subject. I’ll not just judge every piece of wood as being the same, I’m working it by hand so I can respond as a human.
When I look for the positive point in what you’ve written I do find that we’re almost on the same page… almost.
https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/cap-irons-tear-out-video/

[Patrick Chase]

If you go back to the English Woodworkers video link on the subject and read further down in the comments section Richard has a good message for those that get too engrossed in a tightly set cap iron and wispy thin shavings

That's actually the part where Richard is deeply confused. Tightly-set cap irons add the most benefit with thicker shavings, not "wispy thin" ones.

Very thin shavings have less propensity to tear out to begin with, as a thinner shaving acts as a weaker "lever" on the wood ahead of the edge. High angles are also feasible with thin shavings, as the planing forces are low enough to begin with that the penalty for increased angle is manageable.

As David (back when he participated here) and Warren have repeatedly pointed out, the biggest benefits come when you need to take a thicker shaving as in roughing or trying. In those cases there really aren't any other viable options without thinning the shaving and sacrificing productivity.

[Patrick Chase]

I'm sure Warren can plane many woods in both directions, so can I. Difficult grain is a whole different thing, I'm sure some grain is so difficult the direction is meaningless.

As Normand and Warren have both pointed out above, a plane with a properly set cap iron does not tear out, period. It's important to note that "properly" implies adjusting the cap iron based on the situation, and may involve VERY close sets (potentially on the order of a few mils) on difficult grain.

Certainly we obtain the very best quality (highest sheen etc) when the grain is favorable, but the worst you should be seeing is a certain amount of dullness. Certainly not tearout.

[Patrick Chase]

I went four decades without ever measuring a shaving. I can tell you now that I often use the trying plane in the .001 to .002 range, the smoother in the .0005 to .001 range, and the jointer around .001. The jack plane thickness varies quite a bit depending on species. I have never measured a cap iron setback. I would expect the effective amount to vary by the shape of the cap iron, so numbers are no so helpful.

For what it's worth (probably not much) my numbers are similar with one exception: I sometimes take thicker shavings than that when trying.

As an example, I recently worked a somewhat twisted piece of undimensioned sugar maple stock. I roughed with 0.02" diagonal/traversing cuts (with a cambered iron of course), and then started my try plane with at ~0.005" to knock down the scallops. I reduced the shaving thickness as the try plane took more complete cuts, until it was taking ~0.002" end to end shavings. I think this sort of thing largely comes down to subjective preference though (impatience and a tendency to "go big" when roughing in my case).

[Warren Mickley]

That's actually the part where Richard is deeply confused. Tightly-set cap irons add the most benefit with thicker shavings, not "wispy thin" ones. Very thin shavings have less propensity to tear out to begin with, as a thinner shaving acts as a weaker "lever" on the wood ahead of the edge. High angles are also feasible with thin shavings, as the planing forces are low enough to begin with that the penalty for increased angle is manageable. As David (back when he participated here) and Warren have repeatedly pointed out, the biggest benefits come when you need to take a thicker shaving as in roughing or trying. In those cases there really aren't any other viable options without thinning the shaving and sacrificing productivity.


Richard has made a number of statements which suggest that he did not have much experience with the double iron. He has very good hands and colourful speech.

[William Fretwell]

If you go back to the English Woodworkers video link on the subject and read further down in the comments section Richard has a good message for those that get too engrossed in a tightly set cap iron and wispy thin shavings




http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/20c50688645d8ae5bd617aabae82a7bd?s=80&d=mm

Richard May 11th, 2015 (https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/cap-irons-tear-out-video/#comment-73394)
Warren,
Don’t worry, I left the concerns of tear out behind with puberty. As David said, this is a great topic worth further discussion, but is beyond the scope of this video and this post. I aim for clarity on subjects for my audience so try to cover one point at a time, but I have mentioned previously that I don’t simply class a plane by it’s length but how I’ve chosen to set it up for use. 90% of my work is finished off the try which is set up closely to my smoother (I don’t do any of the whispy, thin gravity defying shavings).
If I’m hogging off material however then I won’t concern myself with the cap iron, I don’t have problems with tear out since I’ll read the wood, make judgement and alter my approach on the fly, but that’s a whole other subject. I’ll not just judge every piece of wood as being the same, I’m working it by hand so I can respond as a human.
When I look for the positive point in what you’ve written I do find that we’re almost on the same page… almost.
https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/cap-irons-tear-out-video/



Thanks Stewie, that pretty much describes my approach. The 4 1/2 and 7 are set the same, the 5 a bit further back. I remove high spots with the 4 1/2 then the 5 1/2 across and with the grain then the 7. To finish I use the 4 1/2 again if needed.

[Stewie Simpson]

Richard has made a number of statements which suggest that he did not have much experience with the double iron. He has very good hands and colourful speech.

Warren; Richards approach to the cap iron may vary from your own, but that doesn't make him the fool. His experience is also backed by a traditional trade apprenticeship and includes a wealth of knowledge that's been passed over 3 generations of craftsmen within his family owned cabinetmaking business.

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Stewie, that pretty much describes my approach. The 4 1/2 and 7 are set the same, the 5 a bit further back. I remove high spots with the 4 1/2 then the 5 1/2 across and with the grain then the 7. To finish I use the 4 1/2 again if needed.

William; seek your own direction, and ignore those that continually disagree with your approach.

[Jim Koepke]

William; seek your own direction, and ignore those that continually disagree with your approach.


Especially if they seem to be saying two different things. Though in reality this may not be the case. From Stewie's original quote:


If I’m hogging off material however then I won’t concern myself with the cap iron

Read this carefully. By implication he is saying he does concern himself with the cap iron when he isn't taking hog off shavings.

When you click on the link the page it takes you to says this:


But getting to know the benefits of the cap iron / chip breaker, is one bit of faffing that I can highly recommend. Especially if you don’t have a dedicated smoothing plane.

THE CAP IRON IS AN INCREDIBLE CONTROL FOR TEAR OUT.

In the video above I explain why and how.

In other words, when using a scrub plane or cleaning up rough sawn lumber the cap iron setting isn't something to cause worries.

jtk

[William Fretwell]

Absolutely Stewie! I enjoy trying different things and ideas for my goals. Some (bevel up planes for example) I wish I had skipped. They are now obsolete replaced by three Clifton's. I also discovered many years ago a large bow saw works very well in my hand, don't hear much about them on here.

[Patrick Chase]

Read this carefully. By implication he is saying he does concern himself with the cap iron when he isn't taking hog off shavings.

In the video, yes. Where he arguably went off the rails was in this subsequent blog post: https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/cap-iron-fatigue/

To be clear, there are lots of terrific woodworkers out there who aren't up on every last point of technique. I think that's what Warren was acknowledging when he credited Richard as having "very good hands". Everybody agrees that he's terrifically skilled, but that doesn't mean he's infallible in this very specific instance.



In other words, when using a scrub plane or cleaning up rough sawn lumber the cap iron setting isn't something to cause worries.

IMO that's not quite true. Tearout can still happen when roughing, and a cap iron can help control it. The scales are very different though, as is both the acceptable level of tearout (a lot more - a few mils doesn't matter when you're hogging off hundredths at a go) and the degree to which a cap iron or any other measure can limit it (a lot less).

I've roughed difficult woods with a 20 mil shaving and the cap iron set ~40 mils back, for example.

David has some pretty good videos on the topic. and Warren has said basically the same in the past (full disclosure: I learned it from them).

[Patrick Chase]

In the video, yes. Where he arguably went off the rails was in this subsequent blog post: https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/cap-iron-fatigue/

To be clear, the thing that he has wrong is his assumption that the cap iron is either "full on" or "full off", which is reflected in his assertion that using it always greatly increases planing forces. That's simply not right, particularly if you profile the cap iron the way Warren has recommended, such that changing the setback also allows you to change the angle of the face where the shaving meets the cap iron.

[Pat Barry]

To be clear, the thing that he has wrong is his assumption that the cap iron is either "full on" or "full off", which is reflected in his assertion that using it always greatly increases planing forces. That's simply not right, particularly if you profile the cap iron the way Warren has recommended, such that changing the setback also allows you to change the angle of the face where the shaving meets the cap iron.
Not following this. How does changing the setback of the cap iron allow you to change the angle (of the cap iron)? The angle is fixed. Can you please elaborate?

[Jim Koepke]

To be clear, the thing that he has wrong is his assumption that the cap iron is either "full on" or "full off", which is reflected in his assertion that using it always greatly increases planing forces. That's simply not right, particularly if you profile the cap iron the way Warren has recommended, such that changing the setback also allows you to change the angle of the face where the shaving meets the cap iron.

My first thought was to address the increase of planing force caused by the shaving "pushing against" the cap iron. This is physics pure and simple. Reactions to opposing forces and all. If one is taking thick shavings it will push back on the cap iron more than a thin shaving.

For Pat's question:


How does changing the setback of the cap iron allow you to change the angle (of the cap iron)? The angle is fixed.

This may be when on is using a cap iron like the Stanley version with a curvature in the area of the meeting of blade and cap iron. The shaving will have a tendency to hit against a higher spot on the (elliptical ?) arc which changes the angle of interaction and also reduces the amount of push back via the shaving.



jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Not following this. How does changing the setback of the cap iron allow you to change the angle (of the cap iron)? The angle is fixed. Can you please elaborate?

Warren recommends profiling the cap iron with a rounded leading edge, such that the angle continuously decreases as you move up the cap iron face. The further back you set the cap iron, the higher the shaving meets it and the lower the "breaking angle". It's really that simple.

The net of it is that you can get a lot of "force/effect modulation" from fairly small cap iron movements if you configure it that way.

[Patrick Chase]

This may be when on is using a cap iron like the Stanley version with a curvature in the area of the meeting of blade and cap iron. The shaving will have a tendency to hit against a higher spot on the (elliptical ?) arc which changes the angle of interaction and also reduces the amount of push back via the shaving.

Exactly, but the Stanleys as shipped are too flat and don't go to a high enough peak angle and don't have sharp enough curvature to be really effective. Even those need some reprofiling, though nowhere near as much as the newer solid ones do.

[steven c newman]

Later this week, I hope, I will be hand plane on some Ash panels......almost the same as White Oak.
374612
Quarter sawn stuff, to boot.....May use either a T-9 Stanley #4 or a T-4 Millers Falls No. 9....depends...

More than welcome to come over and watch.....