O1 plane blades

[Derek Cohen]

Is there a company other than Hock /Lee Valley supplying O1 plane blades as replacement for LN bench planes, that are closer to the original thickness.

Just remembered - Clifton make O1 blades and these are 3/16" thick ... same as the LN. I have one that I occasionally use in a LN #3.

Most of the time my LN #3 uses a PM-V11 Veritas Stanley Replacement blade as our local woods are not ideal for O1. Also, most of the time, my LN #4 1/2 runs the original A2 blade - it gets infrequent use, and the A2 blade has been fine.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

I have been to about a dozen Lie Nielsen hand tool events, but I have never seen one of their planes produce a quality surface. I don't know the reason for this. It could be because of the high angle planing, the high chrome plane iron, the sharpening media, or the sharpening technique, but I never figured it out.

If you are going to sand the surface anyway, I guess it doesn't matter, but it would mean extra work.

[Derek Cohen]

Warren, I imagine that sharpening and set up, along with cutting angle, are all going to play a part. Who knows how many used a plane at an Event, and the standard to which it was set up?

The early, hammered rather than later cast, Clifton blades are very nice.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

[QUOTE=Derek Cohen;3305332]Warren, I imagine that sharpening and set up, along with cutting angle, are all going to play a part. Who knows how many used a plane at an Event, and the standard to which it was set up?
/QUOTE]

Who knows? I know. I have watched them sharpen the irons and then seen the result.

[Derek Cohen]

[QUOTE=Warren Mickley;3305349]

Warren, I imagine that sharpening and set up, along with cutting angle, are all going to play a part. Who knows how many used a plane at an Event, and the standard to which it was set up?
/QUOTE]

Who knows? I know. I have watched them sharpen the irons and then seen the result.

Warren, I have no doubt that you could have done a better sharpening job. Also a better job of setting the chipbreaker, and using it with a standard angle frog to better effect. But then that might also mean that the LN blades (and planes?) are potentially better than presented by LN. How good could they get?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[John C Cox]

My own experience with A2 and HSS irons is that they are unparallelled for roughing and stock removal. They do really well when you are already planning to sand your finish. I think 99.9% of plane users sand their finishes, so it doesn't matter. They can be prepped for no-sand finish work, but they don't produce anywhere near the same working edge life when you're trying to get a glassy surface with zero fuzz and lines. The first couple licks off of a diamond prepped iron will be real pretty.

It takes some chops to make no-sand surfaces. I saw Rob Cosman do it at plenty of his little demo/teaching events, and the Pinnacle stuff he sells is all A2. I've seen him do it with Wood River stuff too, and that's typically some Chinese equivalent of W1. I even saw him do it with Lie Nielsen planes early on, before Woodcraft shifted gears. I decided it's more the workman's skill than it is the specific equipment.

[Jim Koepke]

I thought a selling point of a thicker blade was less shatter. I haven't had a problem with the Hick blade thickness.

It is a matter of physics. A thicker blade has more mass which means more energy to produce chatter or vibrations in the blade. Some of my Stanley blades will "sing" when set for a thicker shaving in some woods. Here are two old merged together posts from a thread on chatter

…
I can cause my planes to create a type of chatter on a heavy cut. I sometimes call it a 'zipper cut' because it sounds like a zipper being opened or closed. My guess at what is actually occurring is the blade cuts until some of the wood splits free (tears out) and then the blade is stopped by the next area of wood that is solid and the whole sequence repeats again. The shaving and the surface left behind have lines perpendicular to the direction of the plane's motion spaced very close together.

It shouldn't require investment in a high dollar blade or chip breaker. It is true that a thicker blade will be less likely to chatter. The cause is usually not caused by the lighter blades used by Stanley or the thinner replacements made by others. Chatter is a type of resonance. All the components of a plane need to work together to cancel out the resonance thus eliminating the chatter.

There are way too many causes of chatter to list them all. As Kees mentioned having the frog positioned properly may be of help.

For a start, the frog should be set so the back edge of the mouth and the plane of the frog's face are in the same plane. We can work on adjusting the mouth later.

The frog holding screws also need to be holding the frog securely.

How thick of a shaving are you taking when you get chatter?

One way to reduce chatter is to take a lighter shaving. How thick is the shaving you are taking when you get this chatter?

What is the angle on your blade's bevel?

25º or less is more prone to chatter on heavy cuts. More than 30º is prone to skipping. Sort of like chatter but different.

When you hold your plane up and look at the side, can you see a space between the blade and the frog?

Having the blade in full contact with the frog will help reduce chatter. This brings up the lever cap screw. If it is too loose it can result in chatter. It should be tight enough to secure everything, but not so tight as to make the plane difficult to adjust. My preference is to have it tight enough so when the depth adjuster is backed off in to its backlash zone a few shavings can be taken before the blade moves back. Some will like it tighter than this. It should also be tight enough to prevent the lateral adjustment from changing.

If the chip breaker is not seating on the blade properly it can be a source of chatter.

There are likely many that didn't come to mind while typing this.

jtk

The original thread is here > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?243823

I think 99.9% of plane users sand their finishes, so it doesn't matter.

Then I must be in the 0.1%. It would be interesting to see a poll on this. With sharpening and good plane technique there isn't any reason to fuzzy things up with sandpaper.

jtk

[John C Cox]

The mass is directly proportional to the thickness, but stiffness goes up with the cube of thickness.. So, a 50% thicker blade is 50% heavier, but almost 4x stiffer.

Anyhoo, I had excellent results by simply upgrading the chip breakers to Hock units. That nearly eliminated chatter. That doesn't help with lines caused by chips in the blade, but it makes a huge improvement in tear-out on Stanleys. Probably wouldn't make that much improvement in a Lie Nielsen, as their chip breakers are generally pretty good.

[Jim Koepke]

I can cause my planes to create a type of chatter on a heavy cut. I sometimes call it a 'zipper cut' because it sounds like a zipper being opened or closed.

While looking over this thread a thought popped into my brain. This may have been done using a type 6 plane. Before type 9, the front of the frog was unsupported. This may have added to the cause of chatter.

Something else that popped into my head when seeing the title of this thread was one of the blades that came in a recent care package from my brother. It was an old Buck Brothers 2" tapered iron. It is likely O1 steel. (correction: the blade was checked today and it measures 1-11/16")

Pictures later.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

It's interesting that of all the planing troubleshooting questions that pop up, I can't remember anyone asking help with a chattering Stanley Bailey plane. Tear out questions come up all the time.

What I see a lot, as a reason to get a modern plane or a thicker after market iron, is that they will not chatter. One can screw around with the frog or get a plane where the frog toes are not supported (I've an Ohio plane like that) and maybe create some chatter on purpose, but other than that, where is chatter an actual issue?

---

I made a few 1/8" thick irons out of O1 bar stock. Make them in the sense I cut them and filed them to shape. The heat treatment was courtesy of the despicable David Weaver. They came out really well. If you get a chance to get O1 irons (and if properly heat treated) you'll not be disappointed.

Rafael

[Jim Koepke]

What I see a lot, as a reason to get a modern plane or a thicker after market iron, is that they will not chatter. One can screw around with the frog or get a plane where the frog toes are not supported (I've an Ohio plane like that) and maybe create some chatter on purpose, but other than that, where is chatter an actual issue?

As you mention Rafael, "screwing around with the frog" may cause a short section of the blade to be unsupported when the mouth is closed tight. It may be users learning anew the use of the chip breaker has removed chatter from being a common occurrence.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Pictures later.

Mentioned pictures later for an old Buck Brothers iron:

Buck Brothers Cast Steel Blade.jpg

It measures 1-11/16". It might work in a #3 or #5-1/4 plane.

Detail shot of the stamp:

Buck Bros Logo close up.jpg

The blade is taperred and most likely the laminated hardened steel is O1.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

As you mention Rafael, "screwing around with the frog" may cause a short section of the blade to be unsupported when the mouth is closed tight. It may be users learning anew the use of the chip breaker has removed chatter from being a common occurrence.

I was jokingly making the point that one has to actually go out of his way to create chatter. I tried closing the mouth early on, it doesn't work, it forces you to move the cb back to prevent the shavings from choking at the mouth. It's a popular advise, though. Along with getting higher angle frogs.

[Rafael Herrera]

If the iron says "cast steel", it's made out of "crucible steel", an early version of tool steel. I found this video showing the manufacturing process. It probably looked the same in the 19th century. The "cast" in the name comes from the molten steel being poured into molds. It looks like it was a tough job.

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks for the video link Rafael. It was kind of funny it is called Making Steel by Hand and the first thing you see is some one pressing the clay with their feet.

I only watched about 30 seconds as there are a lot of other things to take care of at the moment.

jtk