Member
I don't know if the Bailey style can be bettered.
Have you watched David Charlesworth's planing videos on technique?
Of the older stuff I've seen, although there were some bits missing like the use of the cap iron, regardless, nothing I've watched
since holds a candle to the demonstrations of his demos.
If one wants to gain a really good understanding on technique I don't think you will find more comprehensive info regarding accurate planing.
Contributor
I believe he honestly presents his best understanding at the time, and he has improved his advice over the years, but his understanding of the chip breaker / cap iron still doesn't express the importance and the nuances that tame difficult woods the way Warren, and others, preach. (David Weaver especially has been a prolific evangelist in reviving this lost knowledge in online circles, though he admits he is long winded and rambles.)Originally Posted by Warren Mickley
What was a traditional apprenticeship? 5 years full time? That's when you'd be considered competent.Just enjoy the journey!
[OP]
Contributor
What was a traditional apprenticeship? 5 years full time? That's when you'd be considered competent.
I said I would become experienced, I never claimed I would one day become competent...
Contributor
Intriguing comment, Warren. Are you saying that LN and LV conspired to reduce the effectiveness of their chipbreakers?
This has a different meaning to LN and LV chipbreakers not being designed optimally. I would have said that. Simple modifications do improve them.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Member
Set to seemingly work for perfect aspen it would seem.
[OP]
Contributor
Derek, I would love to hear how you suggest modifying them - would you put a 50-80 degree bevel on the chipbreaker?
Member
No, I think they redesigned them out of ignorance. There were some bloggers at the time who suggested that cap irons were only used as blade stiffeners and who flattened out cap iron bevels on their planes. Hence the heavy cap irons and the flat bevels.
That was fifteen years ago or so. Do I think it has occurred to them in the meantime that the old cap irons might be better designed? Do I think that it has occurred to them that the use of the cap iron would put a good dent in their sales of "low angle" planes and "high frog" planes? Yes I do. They have a vested interest in ignorance that promotes tight mouth and high angle.
Contributor
Warren, that last sentence is pure opinion, not fact. Certainly from the side of Veritas. I cannot speak for LN.
Both companies had been making both BU and BD planes long before the forums began discussing, experimenting and supporting the use of a chipbreaker to control tearout. This began around 2012. Around this time, Veritas (Lee Valley) began the development of a new BD plane, which became the Custom plane set. I was privy to the discussion and progress in the early stages, and got to play with an early prototype in Ottawa in January 2013. As you know, Rob Lee participates in several woodworking fori, and he was certainly present when the fori discussions were taking place.
Of particular relevance is the fact that the Custon plane design went through a redesign in response to the recognised importance of the chipbreaker: originally, the plane was to have been a single blade, bevel down design with a choice of frog angles. It developed into a double iron design, with the chipbreaker mounting inspired by the Record Stay-Set, which was no longer with us. The leading edge angle on the chipbreaker is exactly the same as every other modern chipbreaker, such as those from LN, Hock, etc., at 25 degrees. The take away is that Veritas became part of the “revolution”, and definitely not against it.
Like many others, I would prefer a steeper leader edge, but another fact is that there are many opinions here as to the “correct” angle. Some view this as 45 degrees, others 80 degrees. I use 50 degrees. Consequently, I imagine (as I have not bothered to ask Rob), Veritas view this aspect as a user-managed issue. It really is a simply matter to hone a high secondary bevel at the leading edge. That is all it takes - the effect is primarily due to the angle at the leading edge in association with the closeness of the edge to the back of the blade. There are further refinements possible, but this is enough to do the job.
It needs to be mentioned that there are many ways to skin a cat. In addition to BD planes with closed chipbreakers, high angle planes continue to work very well. They did so pre-2012, and this state has not changed. High angle BD planes, such as those from HNT Gordon, are wonderful to use - both ergonomically and in their results. BU planes with high secondary bevels excel as well in. this regard, and I argue are many times less effort to push that BD equivalents. This is in no way to be construed as a preference, just a comment.
There is no conspiracy here. You have opinions based on your readings and experiences (and criticism of LN at wood shows). Rather than constantly sounding like a raving zealot and putting so many down - which is a big turn off - just say what can be done to improve the existing equipment.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Last edited by Derek Cohen; 05-22-2021 at 9:26 PM.
Contributor
Hi Assaf
In my opinion, the best design for a chipbreaker is similar to those used in some woodies for the past few hundred years. Look at the planes made by Steve Voigt. These would make a very excellent model.
Here is my set up for a LN #3. Actually, it is the same for all my BD planes, including Stanley and the Veritas
There are three mods in all:
1. The leading edge is rounded rather than bevelled. The adds to the flow of the shaving. I do not see it as a major effect, but there does appear to be a positive one.
2. A secondary microbevel of 50 degrees is added. The choice is open: a higher angle seems to make the effect more on-off, while a lower setting needs to be closer to the back edge.
3. The forward third of the body is given a little bend to add more spring. This enables a firmer positioning with less movement when tightening the chipbreaker screw. My bugbear with the Stanley chipbreakers I have experienced is that they are floppy rather than stiff, and will creep over the back edge if the blade when tightened down. Some swear by them. I swear at them
A fourth item could be added, this being the chipbreaker screw. The Veritas ones have a thicker head, and are easier to grip (than LN). This makes it easier to set the chipbreaker.
Obviously, ensure that the underside of the chipbreaker is flush and tight to the back of the blade. This is a fundamental tuning that everyone knows to do, so I do not include it as a mod.
Experimentation and practice are the main teachers. These mods might get you started.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Last edited by Derek Cohen; 05-22-2021 at 9:22 PM.
Contributor
Modifying the chip breaker does need a lot of care. Keeping the edge flush with the back of the blade all the way across is not easy. Old Bailey planes chip breakers are easier to tune in my experience.
Sometimes the chip breaker needs a little curve put back in like one of my Clifton’s.
405C4D58-904D-4EBB-967F-87D5A1710FF6.jpg
This simple fix cured the gap causing wood jamming between the blade and breaker. Tried to explain it to the manufacturer with no luck. The cause of this is partly due to breaker design.
Simply put: The breaker to blade edge gap determines the shaving thickness at very close settings. Once a certain gap is reached that relationship ends. Softer woods maintain the relationship longer than hard woods.
You need a gap large enough to actually do something or you will make very slow progress. A minuscule gap may be required for the hardest wood on the planet but that is not an every day occurrence. Experience will tell you what gap is efficient for different woods. The mouth opening influences the quality of the shaving, also up to a point. Changing the breaker gap does change the mouth opening influence.
You can do a lot with very little! You can do a little more with a lot!
[OP]
Contributor
Thank you all,
I took your advise as far as I could (I don't have a grinder)
added a 53-ish degree bevel on the LN plane chipbreakers (I was limited by the angle of the honing guide)
can't round the bevel or buff it out yet so that will wait until next year or so (when I get a grinder)
I do think there was less tear out so I'm calling it a win
I'm also going to buy to new blades for the LA jack (one to put a decent camber on for rough work, the other a 90 degree bevel for scraping)
this has been very helpful.
Member
Less tear out? there should be NO tearout, if you say your cap iron is close.
Have you tried eyeballing what measurement you have it set to?
Something is either wrong, or you literally just gave the timber only one or two passes, not enough to get down to the pits
that you torn out previously.
Sounds to me like you still have a tight mouth, and as a result of that is giving you the impression
that the cap is as close as it can be adjusted to.
If this is not the case, and the mouth is indeed open, then
If it is honed to 53 degrees, and as close as what Derek shows, then it's either not close enough, closer adjustment still available on that iron profile
or you haven't honed the cap to the very tip.
Have you got burnished polished straight shavings which don't curl?, that's what I would be expecting if it is indeed at the settings you describe.
Tom
[OP]
Contributor
you tell me
planeImage 2021-05-23 at 19.35.14.jpeg
took a few tries to take a picture of it - the light band is the reflection of the cutting edge, the dark on is from the new bevel on the chip breaker.
I have a few tiny patches of tearout that wont go away.
its dark out so I can load a picture tomorrow
Member
its easy to make that rounded profile free hand on the stone. Take a reference measurement, so that you know how steep say 50 degrees is, then just pull the cap iron towards you, with trailing edge, starting at the primary angle and ending the rolling motion at about 50. plus minus a couple of degrees does not matter. Continue this until the rounded part is big enough. In my experience that last part does not have to be big at all, 1 - 1.5 mm should be enough.
Good luck!
Member
I talked to Ron Hock about the cap irons he makes at the WIA conference in 2009. When I told him they were a bit flat for optimum effectiveness he said that you could put the very end of the iron in a vise and bend it to suit. Apparently they were made of rather soft steel.
The problem with a shallow cap iron, even with a small steep bevel, is that there is a very narrow range of settings for which it is effective. Just a little too far away and the effect is lost, and just a little too close and you might as well have a high angle plane because the surface is not that good.
With a higher rounded cap iron, terminating at 75 or 80 degrees, there is a much larger sweet spot, and the cap iron can be much farther back and still have some effect. And the 80 degrees is really helpful for very troublesome woods.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
