Interesting Adam Cherubini blog post

[Mark Maleski]

For all of the collective thinking we've done on this subject, the magazine science projects, the endless forum discussions, it seems to me we're little better off for it.

Speak for yourself, Adam. C Schwarz' "Coarse, Medium, Fine" opened my eyes to this matter and I've firmly committed to that approach. When my colleague/friend mentioned he received an old 607 for Christmas, I loaned him my DVD and told him he had to watch - "it's important." So there, assuming he's heeded my advice, that's 2 people better off for it (and there just *may* be more).

To open the aperture just a bit more...about a year ago there was discussion on SMC as well as the SAPFM forum about creating a site devoted to hand-tool only approach. The need was expressed in a similar manner to what's being discussed in this thread. If that site was ever created, I haven't been able to find it. What we're left with is tracking threads like this one that pop up from time to time on SMC and other forums. Additionally, and more compellingly, a loosely coupled collection of blogs have formed which focus on this area. By following the links in each blog I *think* I've discovered the relevant blogs, and I've found that RSS feeds make it handy to track activity across these blogs. But this remains a loosely coupled discussion, and blogs tend to serve a multicast (one-way) function. I think this community of interest deserves better. (Hey, isn't there a magazine out there looking to transform their web presence?)

Don't mean to be a curmudgeon....Seems to me we would have been better off to take a non-innovative approach, simply copy old tools accurately and focus on the work.

Maybe, but I get along fine with curmudgeons. My wife would tell you I'm happiest when I have something to complain about.

[Mark Maleski]

Unfortunately, new hand tools are mostly made for and marketed to those of us that don't use them exclusively. Instead, they are designed for the woodworker who does most of their stock prep with machines and uses planes only for trimming and smoothing, because that is how the vast majority of people work.

I'm not sure I see the problem with that. Most woodworkers will never prep stock with their handplanes - that's fine with me (though I think they miss out on some of the fun). Those that take an electron-free approach just have to take an extra step or two to use those planes (or forgoe features such as Bedrock-style adjusters on jacks/jointers). The info isn't that hard to find, though from Adam's blog it sounds like there's more work to be done.

Also, don't overlook firms such as Clark & Williams, Philly Planes, etc that cater to the hand-tools first folks.

If I want to remove stock in a hurry, I want a light weight plane, with a wide open mouth and a thick, heavily cambered iron...I'm not going to go out and buy a LN jack plane, not because it isn't a high quality tool, but because it simply can't do what I want it to do without altering it in a way that will destroy its resale value (hey, everyone wants a tight mouth right?)....

I'm using an old Bailey-style Stanley for the task. I think I'd like it's mouth opened a bit more than I can accomplish with the set screws. The bigger problem is that I find the lever cap works itself loose with the rapid planing motion. While this perhaps is a user error (I *think* I have the cap screw tightened correctly), I can't help but think it's rarely a problem with the wedge approach of wood planes.

I fear that there still just isn't enough consumer demand for the tools you are looking for...

On the other hand, ever try to order a Clark & Williams plane?

[David Cockey]

Who are the "we" that you are refering to?

Seems to me folks can have very different goals in working wood. Goals can be some combination of the resulting item, the experience, self fulfilment through mastering a skill, external praise, attention, relaxation, and many others. Also different constraints, whether self imposed or externally imposed, though I believe some of the "externally" imposed constraints are at their root at least partially self imposed. And the goals can change, even between projects.

[Robert Rozaieski]

On the other hand, ever try to order a Clark & Williams plane?

I think that's the point Adam is trying to make though Mark. The availability of new tools set up properly for someone doing all the work by hand is limited. The demand is growing, but it doesn't seem to be enough for other makers to get in the game. I could probably count the options on one hand, and maybe not even need all 5 fingers.

[Steve Branam]

Hi Adam,

A little fun with applied geometry! Now that Ken has posted the radius of curvature for Harry's edge projections, what radius do you like to use? You say you like to get .060" shavings. Chris Schwarz says in his Handplane Basics DVD he likes to get 30 thousandths, and recommends using an 8" radius, which would be equivalent to the 1/16th edge projection.

In exact numbers, 1/8" is .125", so in round numbers it's .120", and 1/16" is approximately .060".

So if Chris gets .030" shavings with an 8" radius, I would expect that you would get .060" shavings with a 4" radius.

Is that the radius you like to use? How wide are the shavings relative to the iron width? Full-width? 3/4 width?

I note that if you stood an iron up straight after grinding to a 4" radius and set it to project fully from the mouth of the plane, you would get full-width shavings of about .120", feathering off to nothing at the edges. However, since the iron is laid back at the bed angle, that reduces the amount of vertical projection (sine of the angle), so that full-width shavings are more like .060", depending on the precise pitch.

Not trying to be pedantic here, just trying to determine the practical measurements to use when preparing the irons and setting up the cut.

[Robert Rozaieski]

Steve, I'm not Adam, but I think there is one important thing to note about the radius method of determining camber. It is largely dependant on the width of the iron and the bed angle of the plane. A 1½" iron with an 8" radius camber will have a vastly different effective camber than a 2½" iron with an 8" radius camber, at the same bed angle. In the end, the projection of the iron and the depth of cut will be very different between these two planes. Bed angle also makes a difference. The lower the bed angle, the more camber an iron needs for an equivalent cut to the same width iron bedded at a higher bed angle. So as you can see, all the geometry can be extremely confusing. The good thing is, all the geometry is essentially unnecessary.

A much easier way to figure out how much camber you need is to assemble the plane and adjust the iron projection until the depth of cut is where you want it at the center of the cutting edge (for example, 1/32"). You don't even have to measure this, you can simply use a thin test piece of wood, run it over the center of the iron and look at the thickness of the shaving that comes off. If it's to your liking, move on to the next step. If it's too thin or too thick, readjust the depth and try again until it's where you want it.

Then, use a fine sharpie (or layout fluid and an awl) to mark the flat face of the iron where the edges meet the mouth of the plane. Remove the iron and draw a smooth curve on the flat face of the iron from the two marks you made at the outer edges to the cutting edge at the center. Then grind to this curve. No measuring and no geometry involved, and it is completely independant of iron width, bed angle, or any other feature of your plane that may make it different from another. When set up this way, a plane with a 2" wide iron and a 45 degree bed angle may have a very different camber than a plane with a 1" wide iron and a 60 degree bed angle, but both planes will still be set up for the same depth of cut.

[David Weaver]

In my opinion, the biggest reason people don't become proficient with planes is because they don't use only planes for a few projects over a year or two - there's nothing to force people to "get good" with them.

There is a time factor in learning to use planes, but it is not useless time - it's mentally stimulating to understand how they work. Once you do, you have the option of building whatever you need in the future - you're no longer attached to finding what you want used or new, and being constrained by price.

I am included in the group of people who aren't the worlds biggest fan of adjusters and double irons for fine work. My metal planes, however, do not have any trouble with stock removal, and I don't find them that tiring to work with if the wax is nearby. The only wood bottom plane (aside from japanese smoothers from time to time) that I use on a regular basis is an old wooden fore plane.

I think another factor is in materials. Ask someone now if they want to build a nice project out of straight grained medium hardwoods, and they usually say they'd rather build with figured maple, hard maple or ply with solid wood trim. Throw the ply out, hard maple and figured maple aren't the greatest things in the world to work with wooden planes. Cherry and walnut are much nicer to work with, and you get an appreciation for filling out hidden bits with softwoods because they're much easier and faster to work than a project made entirely out of hardwoods.

But, to come to a conclusion like that, you have to have the experience of bulling a common pitch wooden plane through hard maple, etc, without the assistance of machine tools to fall back on.

One last thing - I think another thing that people have to tackle when they want to work hand tools only is where to get plans. that's something I struggle with, and there's nothing at all wrong with my planes. I don't favor everything 300 years old when I build, but the plans for less-than-showy furniture usually include a lot of plywood, no "real" joinery and the need for a hand tool woodworker to go through and lay out joints in the plans, and make changes. That's a pain.

[mike holden]

The basic problem, and Adam and Jr both alluded to this, is that we spend more effort trying to understand the tool rather than what the surface left behind looks like.
After all, it is this surface that we use.

At one demonstration I was at the presenter talked about the goal of sharpening the plane was to make "fine shavings" - I embarassed him by asking out loudly "I dont care about the shavings, I throw those away!"

The important thing is the surface left on the wood that is to be used. Period.

Mike

[David Weaver]

I'd like to know who that presenter is.

The only time I fiddle with fine shavings is when I'm lapping an old tool and want to make sure it's capable of fine work. After that, no issue.

Or once in a while, to work on an area that is swirling grain and creating problems with tearout.

But to follow a fore plane on a table top? That kind of monkey business usually isn't required.

[Jonathan McCullough]

Why, oh why do people not see the light and use wooden planes? Why do they not wear culottes and hose, shave their heads and wear wigs? Maybe it's because they don't live in the eighteenth century, or make a living wearing culottes, hose, and wigs at an interpretive center. Maybe they just want to build something. Maybe some people are so far removed from the person they were when they were first learning to use a plane that they have no patience, time, or compassion for people who are just learning how to use any kind of plane or tell the difference between a jack and a block.

Why oh why oh why does not everyone see the inherent superiority of adjusting their planes with a hammer? Maybe when you have a plane hammer in your hand, every plane looks like a woodie. Or maybe for the same reason that our great forebears said, "to heck with this . . . I can dial in the blade perfectly, every time with this new Bailey adjuster." Or maybe because the cast iron planes are so durable we're still using the same ones. Or maybe because they're everywhere as a result of their being a working man's tool at a working man's price. Can any of that be said of todays woodies? Really? On a consistent basis?

And if serviceable woodies aren't as readily available as old (or new, cheap, readily available, and more tolerably consistent than some warped, doggerel splinter you might chance across on ebay!) cast iron bench planes, and your first advice to an aspiring woodworker is "firft, you muft perchance cut a hardwood tree down and rive with a froe into suitable pieces . . . ." forgive me if I find that risible. I mean really. If anyone thinks that's a better mousetrap, go build it. At a working man's price. If it's really better, they'll buy it.

Yes, there's an overemphasis on sub-thou everything when it comes to planes, which is equally ridiculous considering they're used to work a material that can, and does, change dimension from daily changes in temperature and humidity. Taken to the extreme, using a micrometer or feeler gauge to measure the tolerances on a hand plane is a bit like using a micrometer or feeler gauge on a Jell-O mold. You don't get compliments on the mold, or the hand plane. You get compliments on the tacky potluck Jell-O mold salad. Or the piece of furniture you made.

But making that furniture? Hard enough. Making it exclusively with wooden planes and period tools that are hard to find, source, and are a pastime to maintain just by themselves? Needlessly difficult for the average person.

[David Weaver]

I personally find it more difficult to make furniture with machines than with planes, chisels, etc.

If you can mark it, you can usually get to the mark pretty easily with hand tools - intuitively.

One clarification from above - the sub thou everything on planes has nothing to do with creating sub thou accuracy in the finished piece - it has to do with controlled removal when it warrants it.

sub thou shavings usually aren't needed to complete a piece, though.

However, buy a plane that is 5 thousandths hollow in the length, and you'll quickly realize why all of this sub thou talk. The ability to go from one plane to the next without having to get material "flat to that plane" is nice when you're only working with hand tools.

Wooden planes are nice to use. They are not as cheap in orderly condition as metal planes right now, though, and require more attention to fit and finish, and the lack of mass makes them not so great on very hard woods that don't tolerate planing that well. There's the argument that you can always find dried out old planes for $15, and I see them all the time, but there aren't that many - especially long planes - that are crack free and ready to go - and at the same time, not very expensive. I consider an old try plane that's $100+ to be expensive.

Any attempt to find a good dry quartersawn billet of beech or maple to make a new body will also teach you about expensive, too.

[David Keller NC]

Why, oh why do people not see the light and use wooden planes? Why do they not wear culottes and hose, shave their heads and wear wigs? Maybe it's because they don't live in the eighteenth century, or make a living wearing culottes, hose, and wigs at an interpretive center. Maybe they just want to build something.

This is part of the issue that Adam is tangentially referring to in his blog post (and has elaborated on directly in some of the forums). That is, simply because something is old doesn't mean it's outdated, old-fashioned or inefficient. In particular, there are several circumstances in a hobbyist shop where a wooden plane is the best choice of tools to use, and that includes comparing its use to power machinery.

But making that furniture? Hard enough. Making it exclusively with wooden planes and period tools that are hard to find, source, and are a pastime to maintain just by themselves? Needlessly difficult for the average person.

One of the things we all struggle with in the pursuit of any skill is recognizing that learning to do something is worthwhile simply because it's difficult - and no other reason. However, using wooden planes doesn't fall into this category. It's considerably more difficult to learn to cut dovetails by hand effectively and efficiently than it is to learn to hone the iron, set the depth and fix the wedge on a wooden plane.

[harry strasil]

I can't give you the Formula for SUCCESS, but I can give you the Formula for FAILURE, try to PLEASE all the people ALL the time. (Swope)

Each to his own way of working, what is easy for one person may not be easy for another.

We all have our own ways and methods of working. We should feel lucky that we have the option of using what ever we Like, Can Afford and works the best for our individual needs.

Stock prep is on of the most time consuming and sometimes trying and too others boring aspects of our woodworking hobbies or professions. Old timers had no choice in the matter as do we modern woodworkers.

Whether you prefer to work with hand tools or power tools or are limited in your ways of working with wood by time, patience, health constraints etc.

Just be Glad that in this point in the evolution of your woodworking abilities, that you have the choices of using what makes you happy at your hobby or proffession.

Choice being the important word.

[Steve Branam]

Steve, I'm not Adam, but I think there is one important thing to note about the radius method of determining camber. It is largely dependant on the width of the iron and the bed angle of the plane. A 1½" iron with an 8" radius camber will have a vastly different effective camber than a 2½" iron with an 8" radius camber, at the same bed angle.

Now there you go, throwing a 3rd dimension into it! But yes, you are quite right, I oversimplified. So much for the analytical method . The empirical method you describe is much more practical. Like many things in hand-tool work, lay the measuring devices aside, put the pieces together and cut to fit.


The reason I ask is I'm in the process of doing this to a couple of wooden beaters, so I'm just looking for a practical approach to achieve the desired results. Adam has set the expectations for what can be accomplished.


Regarding comments about plans for hand-tool builds and how most hand-tool articles are just about the tools themselves, one thing I look for in project books is well-documented construction using fundamental techniques (and yes, it's typically shown done by machine). Then I can adapt that to hand tools. If the design calls for a dado, then I'll do a hand-made dado. And I'll document my version of the build on my blog. Enough people do that kind of thing and we'll have accumulated a nice library of hand-tool build projects.


For example, one book I really like is Glen Huey's "Building 18th Century American Furniture". The projects are well-documented, nice-looking reproductions (I can't comment on historical accuracy). Some of them are quite challenging, and I'm not yet ready for most of them, but they can all be followed without ever firing up a machine. My goal is to build several of these projects with hand tools, like Adam's standing desk project, and more proficiency will come with time. Why do it that way? Because I can!

[Adam Cherubini]

Why, oh why do people not see the light and use wooden planes? Why do they not wear culottes and hose, shave their heads and wear wigs?

"firft, you muft perchance cut a hardwood tree down and rive with a froe into suitable pieces . . . ." forgive me if I find that risible. I mean really. If anyone thinks that's a better mousetrap, go build it. At a working man's price. If it's really better, they'll buy it.

Can I just say, I love posts like yours, Jonathan. I had one guy ask me if I went to an 18th century dentist. Another suggested I have some of my "bad blood" let out. A third suggested I get to a conference in a "dog cart". I'm not exactly sure what a "dog cart" is, but I love the imagery. Your post has such great vocbulary, and I loved the long S part.

I get your point too. Some of what I do is pretty esoteric. I think the esoteric stuff is interesting. Sometimes I try to work without paper towels for example. I try to reuse or wash oilly rags (which really isn't smart). I've worked by candle light (WHY?). I get that this turns some folks off.

But in my opinion, this isn't that. In a room full of expensive planes, my crappy ebay woodies routinely outperform the others. People who use them really like them. They leave a great surface as Mike says and are fun and easy to use. Just the weight and slippery soles alone make for a different and enjoyable planing experience.

Putting the woodie smoother versus infill aside, the advantage of a light weight slippery soled, cambered iron jack plane becomes really obvious in a couple of passes. It's like the difference between good coffee and instant. It doesn't really matter how one's tastes are different, you're going to enjoy the good coffee more. (if you get my drift).

It may be like a sports car and a windy road. You may need to put the two together to really get the full experience.

It's been fun reading your comments guys. I've had a tough day and you brought me home.

Adam