Question for Rob Lee - wider hand planes?

[Will Blick]

Rob, I am curious why no plane makers have made 4" wide hand planes? Of course the current ~2" wide planes are great for edge joining, but what about the face of boards? In find wood working, most boards are wider than 2", yet my guess is, most are less than 4" wide. With a finely tuned plane that can easily take .001 - .002" shavings across its width, (possibly a set up jig) I doubt there will be a "force" problem, at least for the avg. size man. How sweet it would be to rid plane tracks.

Have wide hand planes like this ever been made in the past?

Of course, anyone is welcome to respond, I was hoping Rob would offer some insights.....and I am curious if LV ever considered such a plane. It seems all the tools offered today are re-invents of older tools....yet, with modern machining being so precise and cost effective, I would think a tool like this would be very viable, and more importantly, very useful, anyone agree?

[Jason Beam]

Some japanese planes are pretty wide, but i'll bet it's still a force issue.

Pulling a plane is easier since you can put yer weight into it. Pushing a plane is more work because you don't have the advantage of your weight and gravity most of the time. Also, increases in blade width doubtfully have a linear resistance curve - double the width probably means a square of the force required to push it through the wood - light shaving or not. Maybe for very fine smoothing like that of a scraper plane (which do come wide - look at the #12). That's probably because of physics, really.

[Will Blick]

> Also, increases in blade width doubtfully have a linear resistance curve - double the width probably means a square of the force required to push it through the wood - light shaving or not.


hmmmm..... I am struggling with the Square of the force here.... 2x the work = 2x the energy.... no different than two 2" planes side by side...


I looked for #12 plane via google, found a scraper plane 3" long by Stanley, ended production in 1947....is this what you refer to?


And yes, this would ONLY be for smoothers, sorry for not specifying this... Its only the last bit of planing where tracks are annoying.


Also, if the 4" plane is really heavy, maybe slightly heavier than two 2" planes, this will ease the cut resistance...

[Dave Anderson NH]

Will, Jason is suggesting that double the width make the force required to push or pull it 4X the force. I tend to agree. If I can find the photo, I will post a picture of an 8" wide plane used for smoothing the deck planks and the deck beams of wooden square rigged ships. It is about a foot and a half long has a U-shaped handle and is pulled across the plank or beam by a windlass and 2 men.
This plane is moved around on a 2 wheeled dolly since it weighs about 70 pounds and is very awkward.

[Pedro Reyes]

So all the complexities of manufacturing, moving, carrying, and pushing aside...Said plane, would work on surfaces <4", correct? Anything wider and you'll have track issues as well.

How many woodworking projects outside of boxes are made with pieces (glued up or not) that are <4" wide? I mean, I don't use my #4 before glue-ups but afterwards, so while my starting boards may be <4" (usually closer to 6") the pieces I smooth are generally wider.

I really don't think this would be worth the effort. Unless I am doing things wrong by smoothing after glue ups instead of smoothing all my stock prior to any assembly.

just my 0.02

/p

[Dave Anderson NH]

As a point of reference, the top on the Queen Anne handkerchief table I posted some months ago in tiger maple was completely hand planed using a 2 1/4" wide Clark & Williams 55 degree smoother. I never felt the need for anything wider with the iorn set properly.

[Bill Moser]

I know I've read somewhere about wide complex moulding planes made that needed to be pulled by poor apprentices by ropes, as the master held the plane down to the work surface. For my self, there have been times when I've contemplated taking a running leap at a 6ft long board with my #8, just to get the momentum to get the plane from one end to the other without stalling in the middle. Friction will kill you in the end. If death and taxes don't do it first.

[Will Blick]

> Jason is suggesting that double the width make the force required to push or pull it 4X the force.


Being an energy engineer, I surely comprehend Jasons position, I just don't comprehend how the square is coming into play here. Can you explain how you arrive at this?


I would think the work load is linear to the added cut area. I just tested this.... I edge joined a 3/4" thick piece of maple with my LV LA jointer....then I mated a 2nd 3/4" width board to the first, doubling the effective cut area......and continued edge joining.... This seems like a sensible mock up. Of course the friction increases, but it certainly feels more like 2x the force is required, not 4x the force. Or maybe I just have more force in reserve than I think? (some times this can trick us) It's possible.... Give it a try...


As for how applicable such a smoother would be.... its not for everything, just like all fine tools, its a niche for sure, but one I would really like. I still think there is a lot of boards used in fine wood working whose face is greater than 2" wide, but less than 4" wide. Hence my thought. Of course, after 4", I am sure such a manual solution would not be applicable.

[Bill Moser]

Is there a physicist out there who can help? so we don't all sound like idiots? No, well ok , I'll continue in my stupidity: It seems to me that the force (energy?, friction?) required to move the plane from point A to point B is a nonlinear function of the surface area of the tool. So, it's easy when the surface area (as applied to the wood) is smaller, but gets out of control as the contact area increases. So, jointing boards is not a good test. A better test would be to plane a large (wrt the plane sole) surface.

[Doug Shepard]

Somebody had a post on one of the forums a ways back (not sure but I think here) of a Japanese plane with a superwide iron. IIRC it was around 8" wide and made incredibly paper thin gorgeous wide shavings. I seem to recall that it might have been a custom order and some mention of it being used to plane mantels. Cant find the post though.:(

[Tim Sproul]

(Sharpening skills needed)^n, where n equals iron width in inches. If you have enough skills to get a good edge on a 2 inch wide iron, you need more than a bucket load more to get the same edge quality when sharpening a 4 inch wide iron.

You get rid of plane tracks by putting an ever so slight camber on your smoothing plane iron(s).

[Brad Knabel]

Doug -
I didn't see the post that you're referring to. But, I did see this video on YouTube recently that might refer to the same plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGlEIcotjcg

I don't remember enough of my college physics to tell you how much force is required. But it's awfully funny watching the spectators faces when they take turns pulling this plane across the plank. There are some big guys there and nobody seems to have an easy time of it. They all seem to get nice shavings however.

Also - I agree with Tim - sharpening something like this can't be easy.

[Will Blick]

Tim, cambering the blade will only round the edge of the tracks....if you plane a 4" FLAT board down the middle, the middle will be a few thou lower than the sides....

Great video, amazing find....not much you can think of today, which has not already been built! Although this looks much more like a 6" plane.... AND, the design is not ideal IMO.... as the limitation in bringing your body force into the plane is limited by finger strength....which is why I would prefer a standard plane, just wider.


This push/pull issue must be personal taste. IMO, pushing a plane is much easier, as its more comfortable and natural to lean into the plane. When pulling, you are relying on finger strength for the entire stroke, not natural, and often your finger strength / grip will be the limiting factor. ...... vs. pushing, where the heel of your hand transfers your body mass into the plane. For small planes, this is not much of an issue.


> It seems to me that the force (energy?, friction?) required to move the plane from point A to point B is a nonlinear function of the surface area of the tool.


why non linear? Has the work load more than doubled? If so, how? Its possible, but at first glance, I would suspect its linear.



> So, it's easy when the surface area (as applied to the wood) is smaller, but gets out of control as the contact area increases.


This applies to linear as well.... 2x more force adds up fast.... going from a 1" board to a 4" board is 4x, that's substantial.....

[Joel Goodman]

I saw a thread here that showed a full width shaving from a 4 inch Japanese plane -- can anyone remember it?

[Jason Beam]

Engineering brains are always the toughest to crack, ain't they? Mine always is. I should say in advance that the idea of "square of the force" was just something I pulled outta thin air to illustrate it being significantly more than just 2x. It could be some other exponent - but i do believe it is non-linear.

The best way I can explain how I get to this is that when planing, workload is a tough term to quantify. Some evidence as to width increasing the difficulty in a non-linear fashion is that there's the #4 and then the #4 1/2 - but the #4 1/2 is not 50% wider than a #4 as the name implies. But taking those two planes, set for the same shaving, I can certainly tell a stark difference in the effort required to achieve that shaving. It ain't double - but it's certainly tougher than I thought it'd be given the seemingly minor increase in width.

I don't have a mathematical formula that will prove this, i'm just going by feel.

But if you want math, a similar concept involving pulling a load in a trailer comes to mind for me. A double in weight (workload, right?) on the same trailer requires a square of the force to move it. Similarly, a mass moving at speed x takes y force to stop. 2x the mass takes y^2 to stop.

These are the kinds of physics that lead me to propose that double a plane width would have significantly more than double the resistance. I can only dream to grasp physics well enough to calculate the exact changes, but I do feel pretty confident that this case isn't linear. Someone should put together a force gauge experiment! :D

[Will Blick]

Jason, here is my take on it......


Lets say you make a jig that keeps the plane square to the wood.... such as using side rails. Now we put a heavy weight atop the plane to keep enough downward pressure. Now we have reduced the experiment to force required in ONE direction, i.e through the wood.


We rig a rope to the front of the plane, as the only force required is now in one direction, easy to measure. We leveled all the other variables. The rope goes through some pulleys so you can drop some weight downward, which pulls the plane to its stop. Lets say the weight drops one foot, and the plane moves one foot.


If the 2" takes 80 lbs of weight to make the plane slide the 1ft across the wood in a clean motion, this equals a total of 80 ft lbs of work.


Next, we insert another identical 2" plane, to make the total 4" wide cut. The planes are side by side with rails and weights atop, same set-up on the 2nd plane as the first plane. Now we need another 80lbs of weight on the 2nd planes pulley system.... as its the same set up-as the first plane. Now, 160 ft lbs of work is required to move the 2 planes 1ft through the wood.


Last example, we use a single 4" plane. Whats the difference between a 4" plane and the last example? The two blades are joined, to make one 4" blade. Does joining the blades add any work load? Same cut length, same shaving thickness.... therefore same ft. lbs of work required? What changes when joining the 2 blades to create the requirement for more work?

[Will Blick]

Jason, when I mentioned 4x, I realize you mentioned it may not be as high as 4x, but rather non linear...... the point I was making, which I should have been more clear is.... why more than 2x....


Forgot to reply to your other comment.....


> A double in weight (workload, right?) on the same trailer requires a square of the force to move it. Similarly, a mass moving at speed x takes y force to stop. 2x the mass takes y^2 to stop.


In your example, you doubled the weight of a moving object. Therefore, the amount of energy in the heavier moving object is 2x, not 4x. E=mc^2 I think the point you were trying to make here is.....if you doubled the speed, and kept the weight the same, the faster object would have 4x the energy. This is true, but this not relevant to the hand plane analogy..... because the handplane has no energy, it's static, we have to add mechanical force to move the plane through the wood..... vs stopping a moving object.

So the question is, how much energy is required to overcome the friction of the planes sole riding on the wood (we have weights above the plane) and how much energy is required to overcome the friction of the blade cutting the wood. Hence my example, where I reduced everything to ft. lbs of mechanical energy in one direction only.

[Doug Shepard]

Doug -
I didn't see the post that you're referring to. But, I did see this video on YouTube recently that might refer to the same plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGlEIcotjcg
...


Brad
I thought the one I'm recalling was very much like the one in the video except I think I recall dowel handles sticking out of the body for grips. If I'm not imagining the whole thing, it might not have been on SMC.
I did run across another thread with a 120mm (around 4-3/4") Japanese plane and even refers to being used on mantel faces later in the thread. It's possible I'm wrong on the plane width and this is the one I'm remembering, or I'm mentally mixing some of this thread post with an 8" monster plane I saw somewhere else.
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=85673

That video is great. Kind of looks like pulling a stubborn mule though.:D

[Rob Lee]

Rob, I am curious why no plane makers have made 4" wide hand planes?
(snip)



Hi Will -

Have to say this is something we haven't considered. The manufacturing of something that wide would require a lot more precision, material, and of cash (from your end!)... I'm not even sure a metal plane could be effectively scaled to that degree...

Planes that wide certainly exist - (and some require two people to use).

I do have (somwhere in the collection) a bronze plane of about that width, and it's a beast. I beleive it's a naval tool, perhaps for wooden decks...

No doubt, for some kind of punishment....:eek:

Cheers -

Rob

[Brad Knabel]

Rob -
Maybe you could arrange a prototype for early April next year. Just make sure the blade works in your Mk.XXXXII honing guide and can be worn with the pouchless toolbelt. An inch-thick iron would be a really nice bonus. :D

[Jason Beam]

Will,

Your illustration does make sense. I completely see your logic there. I can't see how joining the two blades would add any more work load, either. Maybe the real reason is that a blade much wider starts to approach OUR limitations as humans? That could be the answer to the #4 1/2 being less than 50% wider than a #4.

I'm starting to come around. It does seem like it'd only be double the work load. Then it probably just comes down to "Can a reasonably sized human push with enough force?". I'll bet it comes down to economics on that one. The number of those who could handle that extra force is probably drastically less than those who can handle half that width.

(I forgot to answer an earlier question: Yes, that was the #12 I was thinking of. Big scraper plane with wonky handles off the side. They work GREAT.)


!!! maybe the size of the person required to push 2x the blade is what ya square?! :P

[David Keller NC]

I'm not a physicist, but do remember those physics classes in college. From the standpoint of the force required to remove a shaving of width x, the force required to remove double the width 2X is multiplied by two, not four (in other words, it's linear). The reasoning here is the first law of thermodynamics - the conservation of mass and (in this case) energy.

However, the force required to move the plane's sole against the friction of the surface is a function of the surface area (though not directly - the formula for friction is force due to friction = force normal to the surface X friction co-efficient, the friction co-efficient is proportional to the area of the two surfaces). Since the surface area of a plane sole increases as roughly the square of the width, a great deal more force is required to overcome the friction of the sole and the wood for a relatively small increase in the plane iron's width.

As someone that uses hand planes every day in the shop, I can definitely tell you that I don't want to think about having to push a 4" wide iron plane (much less pick it up at the end of each stroke!). And I've tried to cut a crown molding with a 5" wide antique crown molder - I found it impossible without a helper once the iron bedded down into the profile and I was close to taking a full-width shaving. Hercules I'm not, but I'm not weak either....

[Will Blick]

> Maybe the real reason is that a blade much wider starts to approach OUR limitations as humans?


I think this is true.... I am big and have lots of body weight to push a plane, but not everyone has the same body mass and muscle to push (or pull). For example, even when pushing, by laying your body weight into the plane....your arm / shoulder still has to oppose the force of your body weight is laying into the plane, so the plane goes forward, instead of your arm going backwards. This will take its toll on your muscles after time. I notice some of this even with my 2" planes.


So yes, I agree with your position.... first a person must have use for such a plane, then they must be physically strong enough to use it.... not exactly a plane makers dream product, as this narrowed down the market. But lots of low volume specialty planes made out there.... If it worked, I would surely buy one. Due to its size, it would be a big undertaking, as Rob mentions.


Now, I am interested in a wide scraper plane like you offered. Anyone make newer versions of these today? I have a LV plastic card scraper holder, which works OK.... anything else similar on the market today?

[Will Blick]

> Since the surface area of a plane sole increases as roughly the square of the width, a great deal more force is required to overcome the friction of the sole and the wood for a relatively small increase in the plane iron's width.


However, in the example I gave, you would be adding a 2nd plane, with the same sole area. I doubt joining the soles would then create more friction...


I hear ya on the application of using one..... however, as mentioned, it would be a real specialty tool, used in the shop, and for someone who doesn't mind constantly re honing the blades, as blade sharpness becomes ultra critical to keep friction low. I notice this even with 2" planes, an ultra sharp blade, honed with 1/4 micron paste (60k stone?) shaves wood like cheese. But when I stop at 8k stones, the friction is noticeable greater. If I am using a 1" shoulder plane, this is NOT an issue. But as blade grows wider and the wood becomes harder, the variables start adding up.


So any large plane like the one proposed, not only would require a strong person to pick it up on the return, but a patient person who likes honing as well :-) But in reality a couple of strokes on a board is all that is required for a finisher like this.... not like the marathon contest we saw in the Youtube video, where it appeared like a log cutting competition :-)

[Rod Sheridan]

Engineering brains are always the toughest to crack, ain't they? Mine always is. I should say in advance that the idea of "square of the force" was just something I pulled outta thin air to illustrate it being significantly more than just 2x. It could be some other exponent - but i do believe it is non-linear.

The best way I can explain how I get to this is that when planing, workload is a tough term to quantify. Some evidence as to width increasing the difficulty in a non-linear fashion is that there's the #4 and then the #4 1/2 - but the #4 1/2 is not 50% wider than a #4 as the name implies. But taking those two planes, set for the same shaving, I can certainly tell a stark difference in the effort required to achieve that shaving. It ain't double - but it's certainly tougher than I thought it'd be given the seemingly minor increase in width.

I don't have a mathematical formula that will prove this, i'm just going by feel.

But if you want math, a similar concept involving pulling a load in a trailer comes to mind for me. A double in weight (workload, right?) on the same trailer requires a square of the force to move it. Similarly, a mass moving at speed x takes y force to stop. 2x the mass takes y^2 to stop.

These are the kinds of physics that lead me to propose that double a plane width would have significantly more than double the resistance. I can only dream to grasp physics well enough to calculate the exact changes, but I do feel pretty confident that this case isn't linear. Someone should put together a force gauge experiment! :D

Hi Jason, actually the expression is 1/2 mass X V squared, not Mass squared.

Pulling a trailer twice as heavy is twice the force.....Rod.

[John Sanford]

Dave Keller nailed why the energy necessary to move a 4" wide plane isn't going to merely double.

Drag. Which is all that friction is... Technically, unless your blade actually has ZERO area and is only a two dimensional line (which puts it somewhere beyond Scary Sharp and into the realm of "Oh, my God sharp", increasing the length of the blade will result in a very slight non-linear increase in the amount of force necessary to take the shaving. As a practical matter though, the blade increase will simply lead to a direct increase, AT THE POINT OF THE CUT. Moving the plane itself along though will be distinctly non-linear, as both the drag of the plane's sole increases, AND the mass of the plane increases. Not only has the sole's surface area increased by 4x, but the mass (which is what you need to accelerate to overcome the drag) has likely more than doubled, and that's if you only increase the WIDTH of the plane. Increase the length as well....

[John Sanford]

Hi Jason, actually the expression is 1/2 mass X V squared, not Mass squared.

Pulling a trailer twice as heavy is twice the force.....Rod.

In a vacuum. However, in order to keep that trailer moving at Speed Z, you have to essentially keep accelerating it against the drag, and the amount of energy necessary to overcome the drag is a function of the velocity, the density of the material, and the drag coefficient.

[Will Blick]

Not that any of this matters for ww, but it does make for a good energy discussion :-)


> Moving the plane itself along though will be distinctly non-linear, as both the drag of the plane's sole increases,


by a factor of 2, as you are adding a 2nd 2" plane in my example above.... the drag of the 2nd 2" plane is no different than the drag of the first 2" plane.



> AND the mass of the plane increases.

by a factor of 2x




> Not only has the sole's surface area increased by 4x,


Adding a 2nd plane, doubles (2x) the sole surface area, vs. the first plane. The objective here is to find out how much added work load there is adding that 2nd 2" plane.....then, once agree, what changes if we use a single 4" plane. Unless you can find a difference in using two 2" planes vs. one 4" plane, then I can't grasp your findings...



> but the mass (which is what you need to accelerate to overcome the drag) has likely more than doubled, and that's if you only increase the WIDTH of the plane. Increase the length as well....


For this discussion, we should keep the length of all the planes the same. Yep, mass has doubled when adding a 2nd plane which was accounted for in my example, which is all part of the total force required to move one 2" plane through the wood....


Assuming you agree with my pulley example, using two 2" planes side by side, adding double the weight to pull the 2nd plane.... then what changes when you make ONE 4" plane? I can't think of anything, other than improvements...?

[John Schreiber]

I know this is hearsay, but it's all about using the right tool for the job. I think there is a time and a place for . . . . sandpaper.

[Jim Becker]

Excellent point, John...LOL!

[Chris Friesen]

Assuming equal blade projection, it's going to be really hard to properly camber a 4" wide blade so that it takes a thin shaving in the middle and nothing at the edges. As you get partway out towards the edge the projection will be so small that I suspect it will be difficult to get it to "bite" into the wood effectively and may skate along the surface.

If you were to simply round over the edges equivalent to the narrower blade, this would give a larger flat area in the center and thus the shaving would involve more than twice as much wood and thus would be more than twice as hard to remove.

[Dale Osowski]

Here are a couple photos of my 120mm. It is a wonderful plane to use but it does however require some muscle to pull and sharpening the blade requires skill and patience. I use this plane for a single pass so there is no camber. For larger areas such as table tops I use a 70mm or 80mm plane with camber. The 120mm is reserved for certain projects such as mantels and beams.

[David Keller NC]

"by a factor of 2, as you are adding a 2nd 2" plane in my example above.... the drag of the 2nd 2" plane is no different than the drag of the first 2" plane."

I think your thought experiment makes sense. However, one would expect that there would be some difference between simply doubling a 2" wide plane and making one that's 4" wide. While not a huge %, there's extra surface area in the 2-plane example, and more weight, than a 4" wide plane. The extra surface area arises from the fact that (at least on a conventional bench plane) there's some amount of sole on either side of the blade. The extra weight arises from the fact that there's 2 extra side walls on the 2-plane example than on a 4" wide plane.

Still, my opinion remains the same - I don't want to have to push (or pick up) a 4" wide iron plane! I'm with Robin - that would equate to punishment for some sort of woodworking infraction. ;)

[Will Blick]

> While not a huge %, there's extra surface area in the 2-plane example, and more weight, than a 4" wide plane. The extra surface area arises from the fact that (at least on a conventional bench plane) there's some amount of sole on either side of the blade. The extra weight arises from the fact that there's 2 extra side walls on the 2-plane example than on a 4" wide plane.


Your points are valid, but, when going from two 2" planes to a single 4" plane, all these factors favor the single 4" plane, requiring less force for a single 4" vs. two 2"'s. So the only position your points support is, - a single 4" plane requires less force than two 2" planes. which might mean, a single 4" would require less than 2x the force of two 2" planes :(


Of course I understand this plane would not be for everyone.... and yes, sandpaper on a flat block is probably the real reason such planes never existed :-) No argument there...


Dale, you are my hero! sheeeesh.... I assume you made this yourself? You seem to agree on the perfect application for such a plane, for single swipe on boards less than 120mm, but wider than 2.x". sure is sweet, but unless a high quality commercially available one was available, I don't need one that bad :)


For some reason, I never enjoy making tools...

[Dale Osowski]

>

Dale, you are my hero! sheeeesh.... I assume you made this yourself? You seem to agree on the perfect application for such a plane, for single swipe on boards less than 120mm, but wider than 2.x". sure is sweet, but unless a high quality commercially available one was available, I don't need one that bad :)


For some reason, I never enjoy making tools...

Actually the blacksmith is Yamamoto - San and dai maker is Ko Inamoto. You can order one, similar price would be $2,000 - $3,500 There is a 108mm for sale at http://japantool-iida.com/gem/2008/05/tasai-mokume-108mm-plane.html that is a beauty.

[David Keller NC]

"Your points are valid, but, when going from two 2" planes to a single 4" plane, all these factors favor the single 4" plane, requiring less force for a single 4" vs. two 2"'s. So the only position your points support is, - a single 4" plane requires less force than two 2" planes. which might mean, a single 4" would require less than 2x the force of two 2" planes :("

Well, yeah, but that still means that I don't want to have to push a 4" plane, or 2 2" planes! I'd much rather take two passes with one 2" plane...