Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 122

Thread: Workbench height and width

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    The old pueblo in el norte.
    Posts
    1,846
    I don't think those that favor lower height are looking for downward pressure, I'm not. I just want it low enough that I'm engaging my legs. That's going to be related to your proportions, and your flexibility. Both of which are pretty individual.

    You will never make only one bench anyway.

  2. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    Agreed, one of my tests when tuning up a plane is if it can just be pushed without downward pressure and take a shaving. If it requires pressure with a sharp blade, the sole is likely bowed.
    All plane soles are either bowed or bellied, there's no such thing as perfect flatness. I would rather have it bowed, because you're using the full length of the plane. Apparently the old manufacturers agree.

    Also, I don't think you realize how much downward pressure you are actually applying when you use a plane (such as a #5 or a #7) normally. Otherwise you could just pull it along with a string tied to front of it and take a perfectly good shaving, which is ridiculous. :^)
    Last edited by Doug Dawson; 01-24-2020 at 8:04 PM.

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Dawson View Post
    All plane soles are either bowed or bellied, there's no such thing as perfect flatness. I would rather have it bowed, because you're using the full length of the plane. Apparently the old manufacturers agree.

    Also, I don't think you realize how much downward pressure you are actually applying when you use a plane (such as a #5 or a #7) normally. Otherwise you could just pull it along with a string tied to front of it and take a perfectly good shaving, which is ridiculous. :^)
    Doug,

    Check out this Paul Sellers video, he might disagree with you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHrSmZQx10


    ken

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Dawson View Post
    All plane soles are either bowed or bellied, there's no such thing as perfect flatness. I would rather have it bowed, because you're using the full length of the plane. Apparently the old manufacturers agree.

    Also, I don't think you realize how much downward pressure you are actually applying when you use a plane (such as a #5 or a #7) normally. Otherwise you could just pull it along with a string tied to front of it and take a perfectly good shaving, which is ridiculous. :^)


    Regards from Perth

    Paul

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Delaware Valley, PA
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by ken hatch View Post
    Check out this Paul Sellers video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHrSmZQx10
    Thanks Ken. For me, it was as informative as entertaining—lots of both.
    What this world needs is a good retreat.
    --Captain Beefheart

  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by ken hatch View Post
    Doug,

    Check out this Paul Sellers video, he might disagree with you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHrSmZQx10
    He's using pine, which is soft. Try that with a harder wood like oak. But more to the point, that's not how people actually use a plane. If you analyze the dynamics of a plane in normal use, there is significant downward pressure. I don't know what he's trying to prove.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Dawson View Post
    He's using pine, which is soft. Try that with a harder wood like oak. But more to the point, that's not how people actually use a plane. If you analyze the dynamics of a plane in normal use, there is significant downward pressure. I don't know what he's trying to prove.
    Doug, I’ve posted this a million times before - I am not exaggerating ...

    Article here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...omPlanes3.html

    Extract ...

    During the course of my research I became aware that many do not actually push their planes as expected by the design of their handle. For example, experienced uses of Stanley planes often praise the handle for being comfortable and offering much control. This is a forward leaning handle, and is expected to direct the force vector towards the mouth.





    <snip>


    The first hypothesis is that a vertical handle best suits a high bench and encourages one to push forward. This is shown here with a Veritas BU Jointer …







    The second hypothesis is that the forward-leaning Stanley handle encourages one to push down towards the mouth, and that this is more easily facilitated by a lower bench. This is demonstrated below with a Stanley #7 …





    One of the interesting videos I watched was that of Paul Sellers. In this he demonstrated that a smoother would cut without any downforce.





    This was reinforced when Paul pushed the smoother from the base of the handle.





    In the next picture we begin to get a clue to what it is all about. Here Paul is pushing a #4. Notice the angle of his forearm – it is parallel to the bench. This means that he is not pushing down, but pushing on the horizontal





    This is a process repeated by all experienced woodworkers.
    Below is Garrett Hack – notice his horizontal forearm. This is a Lie-Nielsen BU Jack (which has a Bailey-style handle) …





    He does exactly the same on a Bedrock #604 ½.


    Also note that all the planes so far have Bailey-style handles with a forward lean.




    <snip>

    Frank Klausz is a doyen among woodworkers. There are two elements to watch for here. The first is that he drops his arm to push forward (and this is not simply because he has reached the end of the board). The second is that he is not using the knob to generate forward movement – rather, it appears that he is lifting the toe up as the plane reaches the end of the board.



    David Charlesworth, teacher extraordinaire! – once again, a strong horizontal push with a Lie-Nielsen LA Jack, plus this time we see the knob being used to place downforce over the toe of the plane … the knob creates the downforce, not the handle.





    The pushing action is repeated on a BD Jack. The knob is ignored and the thumb is placed directly on the body in front of the mouth for downforce …





    Here is a great shot of Konrad Sauer repeating the same action of those who came before …





    Not one of these individuals is pushing down on the handle, only on the toe.

    .... enough pasteing. read the article.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek


  8. #83
    [Lots of good pictures from Derek Cohen, tamped for brevity]

    You're neglecting to resolve the angular ("rotational") component of the forces at play here. That's why the tote is shaped like it is, to counteract that. The Ancients were good at understanding this. (No tv, no interwebs, it's not like they had anything better to do with their time. :^) ) The physics doesn't lie, and none of the pictures you present contradict it.

    Where the height of the bench comes into play is that it should be comfortable to exert enough downward pressure with "difficult" woods that you get a good result. You, with your Oz iron woods, should be at least subconsciously aware of this. :^)

    BTW, even Sellers (with his contrived example of straight-grained pine) had things go haywire when approaching an area of more "interesting" figure.
    Last edited by Doug Dawson; 01-24-2020 at 10:23 PM. Reason: added context

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    Where the height of the bench comes into play is that it should be comfortable to exert enough downward pressure with "difficult" woods that you get a good result. You, with your Oz iron woods, should be at least subconsciously aware of this. :^)
    Doug, I have analysed this to death. Death, I say!

    You may wish to cure your insomnia by reading a few of my ramblings on ergonomics and Centre of Effort, here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/Index.html

    (these are not long articles - if you summon the fortitude to read them - and they will explain more of my thinking on the relationship between handles, bench height, and how we push a hand plane).

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    There be some on here, that wish their bench to be rather high. Almost to the point others would feel like Mr. Baggins, sitting down for dinner at Beorm's Table.....there just isn't a "one size fits all" when it comes to a Tradesman's Work Bench. Just mock one up...use it for a good day's work...if'n your back hurts,raise it up.....however, if'n your shoulders hurt...lower the bloody thing. Then try again.

    Some tend to think too much, and work too little......

  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by steven c newman View Post
    There be some on here, that wish their bench to be rather high. Almost to the point others would feel like Mr. Baggins, sitting down for dinner at Beorm's Table.....there just isn't a "one size fits all" when it comes to a Tradesman's Work Bench. Just mock one up...use it for a good day's work...if'n your back hurts,raise it up.....however, if'n your shoulders hurt...lower the bloody thing. Then try again..
    You totally nailed it. That's what it's all about.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Dawson View Post
    All plane soles are either bowed or bellied, there's no such thing as perfect flatness. I would rather have it bowed, because you're using the full length of the plane. Apparently the old manufacturers agree.

    Also, I don't think you realize how much downward pressure you are actually applying when you use a plane (such as a #5 or a #7) normally. Otherwise you could just pull it along with a string tied to front of it and take a perfectly good shaving, which is ridiculous. :^)
    My assertion wasn't of my plane soles being perfectly flat. There are some here on SMC where my expectation of what they can do to a plane with their machines is to be as close to 'perfect flatness' as can be achieved with a surface grinder or other metal working machines.

    A few bowed planes have come through my shop. Some have been corrected and kept, some given away, some sold and some belonged to others when they brought them to me.

    Also consider that a plane sole can be bowed in the center yet the toe and heel are still not touching the work i.e. a wavy sole.

    If a plane is bowed enough to require downward pressure to stay in a cut, then in my opinion, it needs to be corrected.

    When planing a piece, my forward hand is holding the knob with downward pressure to register the toe of the plane on the work. When my back hand is over the work, the downward force is taken off of the knob. When taking a light cut with a bowed sole the blade is likely to come out of the cut, most annoying.

    If a plane has a bellied sole, that also would need correction.

    Pulling a plane along with a string would not be an effective way to control a plane in use.

    Paul Sellers is not being silly or ridiculous demonstrating how a well tuned plane works by pulling it with a string. It would surprise me if my favorite smoothers couldn't do this with a sharp blade.

    Here is another silly thing:

    Thin Shaving.jpg

    No one has practical use for such thin shavings. Just like no one has a practical use for a car that goes over 100mph, but people still buy Porches and Corvettes. Besides, that shaving is still twice as thick as achieved in kezurou-kai, a Japanese planing contest.

    If you have read past posts of mine on the subject of Mr. Sellers, you would be aware of my lack of enthusiasm toward him. Just because he isn't held highly in my esteem doesn't mean he can not have a moment or two of brilliance.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  13. #88
    Guys, this is all very interesting, but we're getting a bit off-topic maybe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    No one has practical use for such thin shavings. Just like no one has a practical use for a car that goes over 100mph, but people still buy Porches and Corvettes. Besides, that shaving is still twice as thick as achieved in kezurou-kai, a Japanese planing contest.
    I think both things you mention are done to tickle one's senses, not for practical reasons. It would be exciting to be able to take such thin shavings, or go very fast - even if it's done rarely. I live in Luxembourg, a coworker chose to live in nearby Germany, because there on the motorways he can ride his sportbike as fast as he wants (he told me that once he got it up to 300 km/h ~= 186 mph, it was quite scary). Well, that, and the rent is much cheaper.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Gene Pavlovsky View Post
    There are already some discussions on this topic, but I still didn't figure what to make of them.

    I'm finishing Christopher Schwarz's book on Workbenches, and planning to build a Roubo workbench - my first bench.

    I'm 6' 3" (well, 190 cm since I live in Europe), and mostly use hand tools (my workshop is a 10'x10' cellar also used to store various house stuff, my only machines are: bench grinder, drill press, small metalworking lathe). I use wooden hand planes.
    According to Schwarz's book (pinkie rule), my workbench height would be around 34", and maybe 3" less because of wooden planes.
    On the other hand, Paul Sellers recommends 38" for an average person, for a 6' 4" guy they built a 44" workbench. He also says it doesn't matter if metal or wooden planes are being used.
    Jim Tolpin suggests using 4 hand-spans for the height (40" in my case), which mostly corresponds with Paul Sellers' advice.
    At the moment I'm thinking about going for 40". Although the logic of being able to cut the legs down later escapes me a bit... If the legs are cut down, the stretchers are going to become lower, leaving no space for my feet. Or should I plan for this possibility and make the stretchers are bit higher?

    As for workbench width, Schwarz suggests 24" or even a bit smaller, but Jim suggests 3 hand-spans (30" in my case). I understand this is based on reach. Is there a benefit to have a wider bench, though? According to Schwarz, 24" is wide enough for any work, anyway.

    For the length, due to my space limitations, I will have to settle for 5', which I understand is shorter than what is normally mentioned as the minimum length (6-8').

    Thanks in advance for nice advice
    Hi there, Europe here too!

    I'm 184 cm and my bench is 96 cm tall, 58 cm wide and 160 cm long. And maybe it is a tad taller for me but I'm lazy to change it now. Maybe I will shorten it by 5 cm, it has 15 cm under stretchers still (it was not apparent for me that it can limit how I much I can shorten legs afterwards, you are ahead of me here, hehe). I can also modify the legs and move stretchers up. My workbench is a mixture of styles and consists of 13 pieces bolted together. So I can replace them with new ones, longer or shorter. I can even make longer top if I need to.

    I would say that body adopts to whatever you have, somehow. But there are other factors that can somehow constrain it and thus make it easier to decide. It would be nice to have higher small bench for sawing (or small bench on a bench or maxon vise or similar). So, you could think of that too, like workbench height is sawing height minus 20 cm for moxon vise. In this case maybe you don't want to make your bench too high, that it will be uncomfortable to put moxon vise on top of it for dovetailing and such. Another thing is to have at "compatible" with other tables or machines around. Can be useful, I think.

    Jim Tolpin's approach didn't help me much, as my hand span does not divide my body height in 8 parts. Would be 21*8=168 cm, but I am 184 cm. Small hand, long limbs.

    I use metal planes and plane when piece is resting on workbench. Recently planed 10x10 cm pine 8 pieces 150 cm long each which took a lot of time to plane, and it made my bench 10 cm higher for me. Still was not too high for me.

    DSC_0844a.jpg

    Hell knows what it should be.

  15. #90
    Andrey, your bench looks neat. No face vise or crochet, though? How do you clamp long stock for planing the edges?
    Yeah, these rules of thumbs that rely on body parts are only suitable for people of average proportions. I have monkey arms, for example (good for rock climbing, not too good for pull-ups).
    --Gene

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •