Frustrated with low angle plane

[William Fretwell]

One needs to take off one's spectacles and observe the scratches on the glass one is polishing. The thickness of the blade has only secondary influence on what is happening at the cutting edge, which is a very fine point. Physically, the cutting edge in action is a damped oscillator, with the driving force effectively being variations in the resistance of the wood being cut, at the semi-microscopic level. The spring-loading of the chipbreaker close to the cutting edge will indeed cause an increase in the damping (and mitigate chatter.) The BU plane has no such additional damping.

The guys who originally set this up were very smart, although their understanding _may_ have been more intuitive than technical. I am an actual physicist, and have studied this, long ago.

Doug what you say makes sense especially for the same blade angle in BU and BD planes. I wonder if the thicker bevel up blade was a misconceived idea to compensate for that, you just end up with a longer bevel.
My Clifton planes chip breaker on the new one peice design are precision machined with a wide very low contact angle near the blade edge, someone was thinking.

[Derek Cohen]

Doug what you say makes sense especially for the same blade angle in BU and BD planes. I wonder if the thicker bevel up blade was a misconceived idea to compensate for that, you just end up with a longer bevel.
My Clifton planes chip breaker on the new one peice design are precision machined with a wide very low contact angle near the blade edge, someone was thinking.

Thicker blades have been around a long time, for both parallel and tapered blades. I imagine that they were focussed on dampening the blade, since the bevel of a BD plane blade is unsupported if the chipbreaker is not set close. In BU planes, there is more bevel support, even without a chipbreaker, since the bed runs close to the end of the blade. Ironically, a BU plane blade can be thinner than a BD plane blade. I think that the thicker blades came along as a sort of fashion statement, that is, with a belief that thicker must be better, and so all would-be premium planes received them.

The two-piece chipbreaker of the Clifton planes I found to be an abomination. Firstly, the idea was to be able to remove the front section to sharpen the blade. However, once doing so, on returning the front section, would the settings remain the same if originally set close to the edge? Secondly, the front sections on mine always dropped off, usually landing on a toe. Eventually I epoxied them on. Thirdly, all chipbreakers - Clifton, LN, Veritas - come with a 30 degree leading edge. This is too low to be effective in setting the chipbreaker close. The leading edge needs to be around 50 degrees. Stanleys are rounded and roughly 45-50 degrees.

If one were to look for "precision machining", I would look at the underside of the leading edge, that is, how flat this is, which would enable the chipbreaker to mate with the back of the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

I think that the thicker blades came along as a sort of fashion statement, that is, with a belief that thicker must be better, and so all would-be premium planes received them.

Thickness relates to mass. The more mass the more resistance to vibration (aka chatter). Or as some Americans believe, if a little bit is good 10 times as much must be 10 times better!

Of course there is a point of diminishing return.

Well past that point can be seen in the blade used on this plane:

http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/pag...230,75235&ap=1

They do suggest using a micro bevel to save your stones.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

Through the years, I settled into regular use of a variety of planes. Bear in mind, I mainly buy lumber surfaced 2 sides, jointed 1 side. Most used (always "tweaking something") is my LN 102 block plane. Second (and rapidly replacing the 102), is a Stanley 9-1/2, with a Ray Isles blade. For smoothers, a Clifton #3, a LN #4 (high angle frog) and one getting used more and more, a Millers Falls #4 with 2 piece lever cap. For the material I mainly used, I'm always reaching for my LN BU jointer-blade honed somewhere between 27 and 30 degress, it just always works.

I got a wide variety of special purpose planes (shooting, rabbeting, grooving, etc.), but the above list is what works for me. The key for me, is settling into regular use of the same planes so as to become thoroughly familiar with them. Yes, I have othersthat some will say should be used more (#4 and #7 Bedrocks, LN BU jack, etc.), but I used to the ones listed, and used to honing characteristcs, the feel of the knob and totes and especially how to squint just right, balance on my right foot, hold my tongue just so....and doing that, they all feel just right.

[Warren Mickley]

Chatter shows up as a regular series of ridges on the work parallel to the cutting edge.Chatter is not a problem unless the bedding is very poor. In recent years people have made thicker irons to "mitigate chatter", when what they are really hoping for is to mitigate tear out, which is a very different thing. A cap iron will mitigate tearout, but if the bedding is poor enough, the iron will vibrate even with a cap iron. And a Bailey plane with the cap iron cut off (below the screw) will not have chatter unless the bedding is poor. 18th century plane irons were rather thin, even before the use of double irons became widespread.

In the 21st century some manufacturers started making and promoting thicker irons because their customers thought they would help. The blind leading the blind

[William Fretwell]

If one were to look for "precision machining", I would look at the underside of the leading edge, that is, how flat this is, which would enable the chipbreaker to mate with the back of the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

That is exactly where the precision is applied, the mating is very precise. I tried honing the bottom edge on leather and regretted it, such is the precision. Replacement on the way.
The previous two peice breaker was horrible!

Doug’s observation of oscillations is most interesting. As breaker blades are sprung right against the edge they damp in both directions while BU blades support is not sprung near the edge, at best it can damp in one direction from underneath only, I think we all know that one sided damping just changes the frequency.

[Jim Foster]

One more thought on sharpness. I was using an inexpensive 6000 grit water stone for years. Started using an 8000 grit water-stone last year and got noticeably better results with respect to tearout immediately. I have been working in Walnut a little and Q-Sawn Oak a lot and still get tearout more than I would like, so I am trying a toothed blade to see if my results improve, but have not had the opportunity to try it yet.

[Doug Dawson]

Chatter shows up as a regular series of ridges on the work parallel to the cutting edge.Chatter is not a problem unless the bedding is very poor. In recent years people have made thicker irons to "mitigate chatter", when what they are really hoping for is to mitigate tear out, which is a very different thing. A cap iron will mitigate tearout, but if the bedding is poor enough, the iron will vibrate even with a cap iron. And a Bailey plane with the cap iron cut off (below the screw) will not have chatter unless the bedding is poor. 18th century plane irons were rather thin, even before the use of double irons became widespread.

In the 21st century some manufacturers started making and promoting thicker irons because their customers thought they would help. The blind leading the blind

If you have an iron that doesn't even bed properly, that's a whole new magnitude of dysfunction. ;^) The chipbreaker assists in proper bedding of the iron, pushing it against the bed where it most matters. That works better with the older, thinner irons, of course.

What about the thicker irons thing. More mass? Easier to handle with tongs? Easier to hone? A bigger, more satisfying order of curly fries? You say "they" were hoping to mitigate tear-out, but that has more to do with merely setting the mouth narrower (along w/a sharp blade, shallow cut and angling the plane, bevel angle etc.) And all the kids know that. I suspect that portion size has something to do with it.

It's all a matter of degree. It's possible to smooth wood with an adze.

[Jim Koepke]

What about the thicker irons thing. More mass? Easier to handle with tongs? Easier to hone?

If you had ever tried to hone one with a flat bevel you would know they are not easier to hone. Maybe a hollow grind would make them easier to hone.

jtk

[Doug Dawson]

If you had ever tried to hone one with a flat bevel you would know they are not easier to hone.

I do that all the time, freehand. My point was, that there's a larger bearing surface. Maintaining a bevel on one of the thinner blades is where I go for the jig, typically.

[Jim Koepke]

I do that all the time, freehand. My point was, that there's a larger bearing surface. Maintaining a bevel on one of the thinner blades is where I go for the jig, typically.

For me the larger bearing surface of a flat grind causes stiction on a freshly flattened stone. My tendency is to use a holder on the thicker blades and do the thiner blades by hand.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Have been trying to find some uses for the #62.....ince last August....beginning to treat it as nothing more than an over-grown, over-weight, over-hyped block plane that my Stanley # 60-1/2 would run circles around.....Have a type 10 Stanley No. 4 and a 3 patent date Stanley No. 3c that I always reach for as smoothers....both have OEM irons, BTW.

[John Schtrumpf]

I'm in Doug's camp with the thick irons, thicker blades are easier for me. I freehand sharpen/hone full flat bevel, and use the existing bevel to register on the stone.

[Doug Dawson]

Have been trying to find some uses for the #62.....ince last August....beginning to treat it as nothing more than an over-grown, over-weight, over-hyped block plane that my Stanley # 60-1/2 would run circles around.....Have a type 10 Stanley No. 4 and a 3 patent date Stanley No. 3c that I always reach for as smoothers....both have OEM irons, BTW.

I bought the LN #62 when it first came out, 1994 or so? It was one of LN's first planes, a resurrection of something that had long since gone out of production. (I wonder why.) It was a curiosity at the time, although many people liked it (including me for a while, because it was so well-made.) I moved a couple of years ago, and it's still in a box somewhere. It belongs in a museum! :^)

[steven c newman]

Mine is a year old Wood River....and this..
IMG_7430 (640x480).jpg
Does a much better, trouble free job.