# Flattening Lie-nielsen planes



## Dazzy (18 Sep 2008)

I would like to know would anyone lap the sole of a No: 5 1/2 lie-nielsen plane that comes out of the box. I know that they are well machined but are the soles truly flat.
If lapping is the answer then what is the best way.


----------



## shim20 (18 Sep 2008)

i wouldnt bother a LN plane will have bemade flat enough. i have a stanley no6 my fav plane always using it years old, never laped it etc. never needed to.


----------



## wizer (18 Sep 2008)

If your LN plane is not flat... SEND IT BACK!


----------



## Mr Ed (18 Sep 2008)

I have had a LN 5 1/2 for years and used it straight from the box. It has always worked perfectly so I never felt the need to lap the sole.

Is the sole truly flat? Probably not, but I'm not sure I could guarantee that lapping would make it any flatter. How flat is flat enough is a bit of an esoteric argument - if it works to a performance level you are happy with then go with it I say.

Cheers, Ed


----------



## Karl (18 Sep 2008)

EdSutton":35ct6p54 said:


> How flat is flat enough is a bit of an esoteric argument - if it works to a performance level you are happy with then go with it I say.
> 
> Cheers, Ed



Ah - I posed that argument a good while back!

My concern with the presumption that the LN soles are flat is that, if the sole isn't flat, the end user may not realise either the problem or the full potential of the tool. For example, I had a LN 62, which performed terribly. It turned out to have a significant hollow around the mouth area (when referenced against a reliable straight edge). So I sent it back to Axminster (great customer service, as usual). 

If one is buying high quality planes, I would also recommend buying a quality straight edge to check the flatness of sole. If it doesn't meet the flatness criteria of the manufacturer, send it back. If it does, then it is flat enough.

HTH

Cheers

Karl


----------



## tnimble (18 Sep 2008)

So far all the LN planes I've checked where considarable flat (I own a LN shoulder plane myself). The only things that can be improved and should look at with LN are the back of the blade, the chipbreaker and all parts for little burrs left at corners (inner corner mostly).

If a LN plane has a concave or convex sole or side that are not at a 90 sent it back to the stor or contact Tom.


----------



## Anonymous (18 Sep 2008)

LN planes are flattened at the factory after manufacture and are guaranteed flat. 
I have 11 bench and block LNs and have never needed to flatten any of them from new except for a bronze #3 (bronze moves more than iron).

Always try a plane before even considering falttening the sole and also think of its 'proper' or original use.

A 5.5 is a jack, not a smoother and so the sole does not need to be super flat as you will be taking medium sized shavings with it, circa 4 thou., not finishing a piece.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (18 Sep 2008)

Tony":edbkgqn0 said:


> Always try a plane before even considering falttening the sole and also think of its 'proper' or original use.
> 
> A 5.5 is a jack, not a smoother and so the sole does not need to be super flat as you will be taking medium sized shavings with it, circa 4 thou., not finishing a piece.


Agree about trying it first, but believe the marketed purpose is not relevant, except perhaps in deciding whether a purchase is technically 'fit for purpose' when considering how to resolve an issue (can't see legalese being necessary with LN, LV or Clico though - they all stand by their product.)
What matters is _your_ intended use. My 5 1/2" _is_ a super-smoother, and so I expect to be able to take <0.001" shavings with it.
My 5 however is used as a jack or short fore plane, and so need only cope with a coarser cut. That it _can_ take a finer cut is not important - not because it is _marketed_ as a jack, but because I _use_ it as one.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## wizer (19 Sep 2008)

One also assumes there is a chance of invalidating the warranty. If you try to lap it and cock it up or another fault develops elsewhere (unlikely, I know) you are stuck with a very expensive door stop.


----------



## wizer (19 Sep 2008)

oh well, DC was just on the TV saying that he spends 10mins flattening an LN out of the box.....

EDIT: then it went on to interview Tom Lie Nielson, who said a tool that doesn't work out of the box, isn't a tool.


----------



## custard (19 Sep 2008)

Lie-Nielsen's quoted parameters are all plane sole's flat within 0.03mm, a little over a thou of an inch. I've got four LN bench planes, 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 7, and their low angle jack. All four met those specifications, and the 7 was perfectly flat against my engineer's straight edge. 

However, that doesn't mean that hand lapping can't improve the performance of LN planes, I think it can. 

Firstly Karl Holtey claims his planes are flat to less than half a thou, and he says that's the standard required to consistently produce a one thou or less shaving. Now, my "standard/fine" shaving is about two thou, and ordinarily a LN plane delivers that straight from the box after honing the blade. But sometimes I do want a one thou shaving, and to achieve that consistently will, just as Karl Holtey says, require further lapping.

Secondly, no cast plane will be stable, so just because a LN plane delivers satisfactory two thou performance straight from the box, doesn't mean it will continue to do so into the future. Consequently I check and re-lap all my planes once a year as required. _All Souls Day_ might be an appropriate and memorable diary date for this maintanence!


----------



## Mr Ed (19 Sep 2008)

Beyond my earlier comments that if it works to a performance level you are happy with then why mess with it, I believe there are a few other key issues to consider;

1. How many of us own a straight edge or reference surface that can be guaranteed for accuracy (and is regularly calibrated to confirm this) that we can use for checking?

2. How do you know that the float glass or other material used for the lapping is flat. Again if it is a certified reference surface then you know, but otherwise its hard to be sure - maybe you could check it with your straightedge (but see (1) above...)

3. Can you guarantee that the lapping can be done without rocking and creating a convexity in the sole - obviously it can be done but there is risk there and how do you know that you can make it better than it was to start with?

What I'm getting at here is that I am unconvinced that most of us have the equipment to verify and then correct the kind of deviations that get talked about. Sure if we are talking about correcting major bumps/hollows on an old plane; that is readily achievable, but minor corrections to new high accuracy planes I am not so sure.

Its misleading talking in engineering tolerances without the apparatus being used in the processes being certified to a corresponding level of accuracy.

Cheers, Ed


----------



## wizer (19 Sep 2008)

you could of course buy a Clifton plane at a woodowrking show. Where Mick Hudson carries a AA Grade Granite plate to check for flatness. This way, you are certain your plane is flat from day one.


----------



## custard (19 Sep 2008)

Ed, I take your point, but whether or not it's all worth it depends on what kind of work you're doing, what materials you're using, and to what level of accuracy you're working. What's right for one woodworker may be overkill for another.

A 24" Grade B (bench grade) straight edge isn't cheap, but you can pick up a certificated example for £50-60, this together with a engineer's bench grade square and some Moore & Wright feeler gauges forms the basis of the "calibration kit" that I use to check winding sticks, tool surfaces, machine beds, bench squares, float glass etc. What can I say, it works for me.


----------



## tnimble (19 Sep 2008)

Besides having certificated measurement and reference equipment it's also crutial of correct usage, storage, maintenance and cleaning to keep them accurate. Even a slab of granite suspended incorrectly will be a bad reference over time.


----------



## Jake (19 Sep 2008)

And most of all, one has to maintain one's tin foil hat to a very high standard to ensure that stray radiation does not interfere with the brain's ability to make best use of these super-precision tools.

Alright, I have to confess to having bought some precision engineering stuff too along the way, but it can get a little out of hand and distracting, no?


----------



## Mr Ed (19 Sep 2008)

> And most of all, one has to maintain one's tin foil hat to a very high standard to ensure that stray radiation does not interfere with the brain's ability to make best use of these super-precision tools.
> 
> Alright, I have to confess to having bought some precision engineering stuff too along the way, but it can get a little out of hand and distracting, no?



 

Absolutely right, if you're not careful you can disappear up your own buttocks in the esoteric pursuit of accuracy, when what you're supposed to be doing is making stuff that looks good and works properly.

Cheers, Ed


----------



## andyavast (19 Sep 2008)

wizer":38nslbph said:


> oh well, DC was just on the TV saying that he spends 10mins flattening an LN out of the box.....
> 
> EDIT: then it went on to interview Tom Lie Nielson, who said a tool that doesn't work out of the box, isn't a tool.



I visited David Charlesworths workshop recently and the subject of flattening plane soles inevitably came up. He showed me one of his Lie-Nielsen 5 1/2's and told me he 'flattened' the sole to polish out the surface grinding marks. Perhaps that is what he meant on his DVD.

Andy


----------



## custard (19 Sep 2008)

Jake":3nes4hoo said:


> Alright, I have to confess to having bought some precision engineering stuff too along the way, but it can get a little out of hand and distracting, no?



I take your point. There's a spectrum of woodwork that runs from cheerfully nailing bits of chipboard together...to the school of extreme cabinetmaking that's a cross between precision engineering and surgery. And we're all free to locate ourselves wherever on that spectrum we want. 

But in the same way that we tend to label any driver who drives 5mph faster than us as insane and 5mph slower as a Sunday driver, there's a similar tendency in craftsmanship to say that anyone who looks for a bit more precision than us is a deluded fetishist, and anyone who is satisfied with a bit less is an amateurish hacker!


----------



## Jake (19 Sep 2008)

custard":2igafbwb said:


> I take your point. There's a spectrum of woodwork that runs from cheerfully nailing bits of chipboard together...to the school of extreme cabinetmaking that's a cross between precision engineering and surgery. And we're all free to locate ourselves wherever on that spectrum we want.



OK, but the spectrum reflects your bias (in the sense of interests/approach to your craft etc). 

I am sure there are plenty of makers of exquisitely crafted high-end work who don't have the same preoccupation with engineering levels of precision in tools. 

I'm also sure you are right that often the 'engineering tendency' will express itself in the type of end-product produced, but I've seen a lot of that stuff which I wouldn't put at the top of a (my) scale of merit.


----------



## Anonymous (19 Sep 2008)

dunbarhamlin":216pwid1 said:


> My 5 1/2" _is_ a super-smoother, and so I expect to be able to take <0.001" shavings with it.Cheers
> Steve



Steve

What makes your 5.5 a "super smoother" yet my #4.5 a smoother? What is "super" about it?

Is it just DCs repeated use of the meaningless term?

I subscribe to Chris Schwart's view that planes were designed with a particular purpose in mind and when used as originally intended, they work very well indeed. My smoothers are a LN #3, LV BU and a LN #4.5, each of which have soles I care about and are very flat. The rest take shavings in excess of 4 thou and so I don't bother about the soles.

When used as orignally intended, the journey from rough wood to finished surface is much shorter.

I have no problem with people using any plane for whatever purpose they want, but "super" smoother?????


----------



## Karl (19 Sep 2008)

Tony":27ws3gtt said:


> Is it just DCs repeated use of the meaningless term?



Speaking of DC, haven't seen him post here for a number of months. Hope he hasn't gone for good.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Karl (19 Sep 2008)

Tony":3lqw47mi said:


> The rest take shavings in excess of 4 thou and so I don't bother about the soles.



Which begs the question as to why LN/Clifton/LV bother to engineer the things to such high standards in the first place. Or why, for that matter, use LN/LV/Clifton planes for "rougher" work.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## tnimble (19 Sep 2008)

karl":z54a9jwo said:


> Tony":z54a9jwo said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just DCs repeated use of the meaningless term?
> ...



He was goin to be at the Baptist weekend woodworking show, but he called sick about 3 weeks in advance. I hope everything works out for David.


----------



## tnimble (19 Sep 2008)

Tony":2kzmpn28 said:


> dunbarhamlin":2kzmpn28 said:
> 
> 
> > My 5 1/2" _is_ a super-smoother, and so I expect to be able to take <0.001" shavings with it.Cheers
> ...



Super as in large. When a larger plane such as a no 5.5 is flat, with a norrow mouth, just as a no 3 or no 4 (slash dot anything) it has the same intended purpose as the traditional intended purpose of a no 3 or 4.

The big difference being its weigth which makes it much easier to push it trough tough wood at higher blade angels, and due to its length and more downward pressure flattens the board even further.

A 'super' smoother is used the same as traditionally a smoother would, as the final step after roughing and refining. Its a finishing plane not a dimensioning plane.

The dimentioning is done first either with an power thicknesser / jointer or with a fore and jointer plane.


----------



## tnimble (19 Sep 2008)

karl":1r8onw6m said:


> Which begs the question as to why LN/Clifton/LV bother to engineer the things to such high standards in the first place. Or why, for that matter, use LN/LV/Clifton planes for "rougher" work.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Karl



Because now the user can decide for what stage to use the plane, just by how to setup the blade. Instead as of traditionally with for instace back in the days Stanley desided the use by different machining standard for flatness and (non adjustable) mouth opening.

And for the second part, why not? You're not limited by bying only one plane. You could buy three LN no 8s and set them up as a super fore, a jointer and a tera smoother.


----------



## Karl (19 Sep 2008)

tnimble":1xxf6uu1 said:


> And for the second part, why not? You're not limited by bying only one plane. You could buy three LN no 8s and set them up as a super fore, a jointer and a tera smoother.



I can think of one good reason - cost. 3 LN 8's would set you back over £1100. A tad ridiculous, methinks.

I don't understand why you would want to use such expensive planes for rough work.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## tnimble (19 Sep 2008)

karl":12b2ioec said:


> I can think of one good reason - cost. 3 LN 8's would set you back over £1100. A tad ridiculous, methinks.
> 
> I don't understand why you would want to use such expensive planes for rough work.



Festool also promotes their plunge saw for sawing plasterboard. Also reticulates to use a such a expensive device for a thing than can be done with just a retractable knife and a chalkline. Neither is the precision of the festool kti needed to put up an interial wall that's going to be plastered or recieve wall paper. Yet they do, and some contractors chose to do so.


----------



## ivan (20 Sep 2008)

I thought 'super smoother' = panel plane? I don't know how accurate is careful lapping on a granite plate, my smallest feeler is 1.5 thou, but LN suggest ocasional lapping to keep plane flat, so presumably they don't think it degrades their standard. The body of a longer plane will flex under load (often forgotten!) but the leading edge of the mouth must have good contact (Holtey's 0.5 thou) The sole of both my LNs and Cliftons were slightly convex across the sole when new. Only the No. 9 has retained accurate 90deg sides some 3 to 4 years after purchase. Shorter planes can be checked with the blade of a large engineers square.


----------



## Anonymous (20 Sep 2008)

karl":373wo0gk said:


> Tony":373wo0gk said:
> 
> 
> > The rest take shavings in excess of 4 thou and so I don't bother about the soles.
> ...



Now that is a pretty good question. However, they sell quality tools, and so the soles etc. will all be made to the same standard using the same machinery.


----------



## Anonymous (20 Sep 2008)

karl":2rtbg5nk said:


> tnimble":2rtbg5nk said:
> 
> 
> > And for the second part, why not? You're not limited by bying only one plane. You could buy three LN no 8s and set them up as a super fore, a jointer and a tera smoother.
> ...



Well, let me be honest and own up

I own 10 LN bench/block planes, 1 LN scraper plane, 5 LV planes (2 BU and shoulder) and one Clifton #7.

Did I spend loads of money? Not really. Six of them are second hand, most came from US with a weak dollar, and I bought them over a period of 6 years, so didn't feel the cost at all

I would say that I spent considerably less on planes over the past 6 years that I will pass on to my children after 30 years of use than people who smoke spent on fags to kill themselves!!! :roll:

I have owned a Stanley #7 and Record #6 and sold both to replace them with a second hand LN #6 for £150 and a second hand Clifton #7 for £100 - both of these work much better than the Stanley/Record even though I use them for rough work.


If you're still reading
6 years at 20 fags a day at £4.00 per packet = 52*4 *7 * 6 = £8736!!
My LNS/LVs/Cliftons cost around £3000 in that time and I could sell them for that much on ebay or the forum tomorrow :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jonbikebod (21 Sep 2008)

In my experience all cast iron planes (whatever the grade of iron and heat treatments) continue to move to some extent. I am sure the planes from the three quality manufacturers are pretty flat when they leave the factory; none seem to be after a couple of years.
I guess I am of the ‘engineering’ persuasion. If you take the trouble to make your pillar drill perfectly perpendicular to the table you can use it for rough work *and* very accurate work. A lathe with worn headstock bearing can only turn rough work, one with good bearings can do both. I flatten my L-N planes and go down through the grits to a polish. This makes the plane more pleasant to use, requires less effort and leaves a better finish on the work. 
They are of course capable of taking very fine shavings and achieving a very high level of flatness. – I can still easily open the mouth and use them for rough work where the polished sole is still an advantage. 
I consider periodic flattening/polishing part of normal tool maintenance.
Jon.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (22 Sep 2008)

Crikey, only been away for two days choppin' 'oles.
Yep, as Laura said, Tony. I use my 5 1/2 as a 'super' smoother as in super-sized. I like the heft - perhaps because though I have more bench planes than strictly necessary now (7 Cliftons and a few others for good measure) I started with a solitary Clifton #7 which did everything my block plane didn't.
(Flippantly, to me it's also super because I like the snazzy Racing Green paint job )
Cheers
Steve


----------



## bugbear (22 Sep 2008)

EdSutton":1eewzfp4 said:


> 2. How do you know that the float glass or other material used for the lapping is flat. Again if it is a certified reference surface then you know, but otherwise its hard to be sure - maybe you could check it with your straightedge (but see (1) above...)
> 
> 3. Can you guarantee that the lapping can be done without rocking and creating a convexity in the sole - obviously it can be done but there is risk there and how do you know that you can make it better than it was to start with?
> 
> What I'm getting at here is that I am unconvinced that most of us have the equipment to verify and then correct the kind of deviations that get talked about.



Agreed. The process known as lapping, and used by woodworkers on plane soles is questionable (IMHO)..

BugBear


----------



## custard (22 Sep 2008)

bugbear":39qgukdt said:


> EdSutton":39qgukdt said:
> 
> 
> > 2. How do you know that the float glass or other material used for the lapping is flat. Again if it is a certified reference surface then you know, but otherwise its hard to be sure - maybe you could check it with your straightedge (but see (1) above...)
> ...



Why questionable?

1. Float glass is easily checkable against a certified straight edge. This works fine for the degree of accuracy required by even precision woodworking.

2. As long as you keep the entire plane sole on the glass surface and proceed with reasonable care I've never found "rocking" to be a practical problem. As I use the same pressure lapping as I use for planing the flexing of the plane's chassis is also equalised.

3. The improvement in sole flatness can be seen by two methods. Firstly I use a permanent marker to draw a grid on the plane's sole. This then erodes in a rational and progressive way. Secondly I check before and after flattening with the straight edge and feeler gauges. And as the erosion of the drawn grid is consistent with the learning from the straight edge test it adds to my confidence that this is all working as it's supposed to.

4. I see a real performance difference pre and post lapping. I get finer shavings, easier more consistent and more precise blade setting, and less break out (in particular where a hollow immediately in front of the blade or a hump immediately behind the blade has been removed)


----------



## bugbear (22 Sep 2008)

custard":10vkmupc said:


> bugbear":10vkmupc said:
> 
> 
> > The process known as lapping, and used by woodworkers on plane soles is questionable (IMHO)..
> ...



http://www.geocities.com/plybench/flatten.html

BugBear


----------



## custard (22 Sep 2008)

bugbear":1lt7zay4 said:


> custard":1lt7zay4 said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":1lt7zay4 said:
> ...



Thanks for that link. It's interesting that the author says float glass flattening has the problem of swarf build-up causing slight convexity. I'd make two points,

1. In practise I've found a slightly convex plane to be a better performer than an equally concave plane. I don't know the reason why this is so, but suspect a concave plane may need a longer length of unsupported blade to function, which exacerbates chatter.

2. I agree with the swarf comments, so I regularly vacuum the sandpaper to remove this. It's quicker to just brush or blow it off, but the dust might be particularly noxious.


----------



## bugbear (22 Sep 2008)

custard":3suwcxp2 said:


> bugbear":3suwcxp2 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.geocities.com/plybench/flatten.html
> ...



(chuckle) "the Author" is me. On your (2) I recommend a nice strong magnet. Picks up and holds the swarf nicely.

Did you read how S&S get lapping to work properly?

BugBear


----------



## Mr Ed (22 Sep 2008)

bugbear":132rsk1u said:


> Did you read how S&S get lapping to work properly?
> 
> BugBear



Can you elaborate?

Ed


----------



## bugbear (23 Sep 2008)

EdSutton":3vj3hvpd said:


> bugbear":3vj3hvpd said:
> 
> 
> > Did you read how S&S get lapping to work properly?
> ...



This link from my page:

http://www.sauerandsteiner.com/news/200 ... sucks.html

BugBear


----------



## custard (23 Sep 2008)

bugbear":3pukpq10 said:


> EdSutton":3pukpq10 said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":3pukpq10 said:
> ...



It's in the nature of these articles to be summary and incomplete. I hope so, because if it _fully_ describes the lapping methodology of S&S then there's a flaw in their technique. 

The article seems to suggest that their litmus test for flatness is to rest the plane on a datum surface, and then to try and insert feeler gauges underneath the sole. But I frequently see planes with a hollow patch immediately ahead of the blade. I've seen this with new planes, and in the case of older planes, where years of use have worn the sole in this area more than others, it's so common as to be the norm. Testing for flatness in the manner suggested by the article could produce a flat "skirt" that prevents a feeler gauge being inserted, but still retain this hollow. And I think it's this hollow which is the worst culprit when it comes to break out on difficult grain.

I'd still recommend the following,

1. Use a quality straight edge to understand the general topography of the sole.

2. Draw a grid pattern of lines all over the sole with a permanent marker.

3. Stick abrasive paper to 12mm or thicker, untoughened, float glass (or a flat marble block or a flat machine bed) which in turn rests on a piece of thick MDF on a flat bench.

4. To your earlier point, regularly remove the swarf and keep all the sole on the substrate.

5. Check that the grid pattern is being eroded consistent with the learning of the earlier straight edge inspection.

6. Lap until all or nearly all of the grid is removed (especially at the toe, heel, and immediately before and after the blade), then check again with a straight edge and feeler gauges at several positions on the sole.


----------



## Mr Ed (23 Sep 2008)

You'd better let Konrad Sauer know he's doing it wrong then..!?

Cheers, Ed


----------



## tnimble (24 Sep 2008)

custard":18jwc2bb said:


> I'd still recommend the following,
> ...list...



I've a few troubles with this recommendation.
- how does point / step 1 relate / affect points / steps 2 through 6?
- how does the evenly vading of the drawn grid ensure flattness? It only indicates an even surface wear or even solventability of the drawn grid. The sole can still have a consistent convex shape in multiple directions.
- a surface plate has to be supported by multiple points that have to be level, in plane and on specific locations within tolerances as stated by the manufacturer for its flatness to be guaranteed as stated in the certificate. Most manufacturers supply adjustable mounting frames or brackets for this. Some supply only fully mounted surface tables and locally do the final scraping and the certification process.
- how will the piece of MDF as recommended between the bench (which is not flat) and the bottom of the surface plate (which is also not flat) level out the variances in these surfaces?


----------



## custard (24 Sep 2008)

tnimble":95du37de said:


> custard":95du37de said:
> 
> 
> > I'd still recommend the following,
> ...



Flatness is a relative term. The flatness needed to make a bench plane perform better isn't the same flatness that's needed to build the Large Hadron Collider. 

The proof of the pudding's in the eating, and the method outlined, if used with reasonable care, will produce finer shavings and reduce tear out.


----------



## tnimble (24 Sep 2008)

custard":10ae8x0g said:


> The proof of the pudding's in the eating, and the method outlined, if used with reasonable care, will produce finer shavings and reduce tear out.


S&S planes perform extremely well according to whom have tried them / own them. So their method is proven and can't be questioned by that standard.


----------



## custard (24 Sep 2008)

tnimble":1ym50yoy said:


> custard":1ym50yoy said:
> 
> 
> > The proof of the pudding's in the eating, and the method outlined, if used with reasonable care, will produce finer shavings and reduce tear out.
> ...



Let me clear this up, I said that these articles are partial and incomplete, implying that there's surely more to the S&S testing process. I've never used an S&S plane but I'm sure they're superb performers.


----------



## bugbear (24 Sep 2008)

custard":2t3gslc0 said:


> The proof of the pudding's in the eating, and the method outlined, if used with reasonable care, will produce finer shavings and reduce tear out.



As is the case, to a very high standard, of S&S's method, as demonstrated by the remarkable performance of their planes.

BugBear


----------



## Benchwayze (24 Sep 2008)

shim20":11kjrbr3 said:


> i wouldnt bother a LN plane will have bemade flat enough. i have a stanley no6 my fav plane always using it years old, never laped it etc. never needed to.



My LN No 4, bronze 'Bedrock' wasn't flat and it most certainly did not _'*Use straight out the box.'*_ (Not that I expected it would, with just the single 25 deg. bevel.) It planed very fine shavings, but I had to fettle it considerably to get it to produce a full width shaving. Also, although I am far from 'ham-fisted', a piece of fine Mahogany scratched the sole. 

Most disappointed for what I paid. Hence, I didn't 'gloat' it. In fact I am even thinking of selling it.

John


----------



## Karl (24 Sep 2008)

Benchwayze":2p72gy44 said:


> My LN No 4, bronze 'Bedrock' wasn't flat and it most certainly did not _'*Use straight out the box.'*_ (Not that I expected it would, with just the single 25 deg. bevel.) It planed very fine shavings, but I had to fettle it considerably to get it to produce a full width shaving. Also, although I am far from 'ham-fisted', a piece of fine Mahogany scratched the sole.
> 
> Most disappointed for what I paid. Hence, I didn't 'gloat' it. In fact I am even thinking of selling it.
> 
> John



That is bad news John. Most dissapointing for a sizeable investment. But since you have "fettled" it, I doubt LN would do anything about it now. For future reference (if you decide to buy an LN plane in the future), I wouldn't even consider fettling. LN are pretty good about their products - I doubt they would want to have an unsatisfied customer. 

I mentioned earlier that I had an LN 62 which was terrible - had a large hollow round the mouth area. Sent it back, and didn't buy a replacement.  

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Pete Howlett (26 Sep 2008)

Maybe I am out on a limb here but a polished sole will create more friction and be harder to use. I hope we all have an old candle in our toolbox?

Secondly this seems to be a Lie Nielsen debate. Am I the only one here using Miller Falls planes? I love 'em. They need work, the lead screw is always quite slack but are they heavy and comfortable in the hands. I find the read paint inspires me...

I have also been disappointed with Clifton hand planes (their shoulder planes are a delight). I don't know why but they seemed very uncomfortable with the handle too far away from the frog. Is it just me or are these designs not quite right?


----------



## jonbikebod (27 Sep 2008)

Pete Howlett":3ie6z00t said:


> Maybe I am out on a limb here but a polished sole will create more friction and be harder to use.


If you have actually tried this Pete and found there to be more friction, you must be doing something wrong…. :shock: If you are taking the view that Stanley did – less contact area = less friction, their corrugated sole planes didn’t in practice reduce friction which is why they were never very popular. 
A polished sole should leave a superior finish to the wood with no chance of wax contamination.
Jon.


----------



## tnimble (28 Sep 2008)

jonbikebod":bummogt6 said:


> Pete Howlett":bummogt6 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I am out on a limb here but a polished sole will create more friction and be harder to use.
> ...



Besides the friction as in coulomb static or dynamic friction, which is only depend on the friction constant of the two material involved and the force perpendicular to the surface, there's also diffusive, electrostatic, mechanical and dispersive adhesion between materials and vacuum/atmospheric pressure induced normal force (which are in fact the properties that determine the friction constant).

For instance the mechanical adhesion reduces when a surface is polished, but diffusive, electrostatic and dispersive can increase. Also when two flat polished surfaces meet a vacuum can be created between those surfaces, this means the normal force Fn (friction Ff = μ . Fn) is increased up to by the atmospheric pressure (added to the already present man induced force and the weight of the plane)

The corrugated plane sole does not reduce friction by having less surface / contact area. It reduces the force F that can be induced by the atmospheric pressure p by having less area A (F = p . A). With green or high resin content woods the fluids in the wood seal the voids of the two meeting rough surfaces. There fore the corrugated have only merits in green wood working or with some special woods.


----------



## Benchwayze (4 Oct 2008)

bugbear":2jamjhd6 said:


> EdSutton":2jamjhd6 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. How do you know that the float glass or other material used for the lapping is flat. Again if it is a certified reference surface then you know, but otherwise its hard to be sure - maybe you could check it with your straightedge (but see (1) above...)
> ...



re glass flexing.. 

Use 25mm float glass. Have it on a stable benchtop that is at least 4" thick and has 4 x 4 legs. If your workbench passes this, then cover it with a sheet of plastic and put an extra 25mm thickness of MDF under the glass. Better still, use a piece of melamine faced MDF as a lapping surface. That is truer than float glass, it's cheaper in thicker sizes and if you don't use a piece that is too large in area, then it won't flex.

So I have found.
Regards John


----------

