# Edge jointing without a cambered blade.



## Philly (29 Apr 2006)

Hi All,
As most of my tools are in storage I hit a problem when edge jointing some boards for a table top. Some of the boards had edges that were in wind. And I only had my LA Jack and a block plane to hand. My LA Jack has a straight sharpened blade (with the corners knocked off) so was no good for my usual (Charlesworth method) means of removing wind. So I came up with this….
Using a square mark out the areas that need removing on the edge. Then using a block plane remove the high spots with partial (i.e not full edge width) shavings. A full shaving from my LA Jack gave a true edge. Result!  
Maybe not the best way to work but it worked!
Hope this is of help
Philly  
_Who really, really wants to move into his new workshop_


----------



## Paul Chapman (29 Apr 2006)

Hi Philly, 

I'm intrigued to hear that you usually adopt David Charlesworth's method when jointing boards.

I have David's book "Furniture-making Techniques, volume two" and I have read his description several times. I've never bought into the technique of using a cambered blade, planing the boards hollow or planing one board at a time. 

The way I was taught at school back in the 1950s was the way described in "Planecraft". That is you put the two boards together with the face sides outwards, use a long plane with the blade honed square and plane as if you were planing the boards hollow so as to ensure that you don't curve the boards at the ends. By planing the two boards together you cancel out any lack of squareness.

Over the years I have found this method foolproof and I just can't fathom how David's method is better or even as good.

David's method obviously works for him (he has excellent work to prove it) and I go along with most of the other stuff he has written. But I just can't see the benefit of his board jointing method.

I'd be interested to hear why you normally adopt his method and why you think it works best.

Paul


----------



## Chris Knight (30 Apr 2006)

Paul,
Not Philly but I use the cambered blade approach too. Mainly because it works in all situations, not just jointing boards. Also if jointing long boards of different widths, I find it a hassle to clamp them in the vice or on the bench in such a way that the two edges to be planed are more or less together. This is especially true when using the top of the bench and a birdsmouth planing stop as I prefer to for many boards.

Where I do use the twin board approach is when planing thin stock eg for drawer bottoms, when it is difficult to balance a plane on a board only one quarter inch thick.


----------



## Alf (30 Apr 2006)

Yet again, wot Chris said. I have a total inability to clamp two boards together in a vice without them slipping. The idea of having to get it right after jointing the edges _almost_ perfectly, only to find there's still a fraction to do and therefore having to put them back in the vice... Aargh, life's too short. I will match joint thin stuff, like Chris, but usually on a shooting board.

Fwiw I was doing it before I'd even heard of DC (Gasp! :shock: ) so it's not even groupie-ness! :lol: 

But back to Philly... Glad it worked, but sounds like someone didn't sufficiently think through what to put in their ready-use kit... [-X :wink:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Philly (30 Apr 2006)

Paul
I have never really got on with the "clamp two boards together" method-I just seem to keep taking shavings forever. David Charlesworths books describe his method but I recommend watching his second DVD-he explains and demonstrates the method and all it's points quite clearly (maybe I'm thick, but watching the dvd made it "click" even though I'd read the articles many times  )
Alf
Yeah, also left my sharpening gear packed away (somewhere! :roll: )
Pleeease let me move soon! :lol: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Chris Knight (30 Apr 2006)

Philly":22ng6qh3 said:


> Yeah, also left my sharpening gear packed away (somewhere! :roll: )



There's always the Axminster catalogue - online too if you packed your copy.. :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (30 Apr 2006)

Thanks Chris, Alf and Philly for those prompt replies. Three more good woodworkers who use the technique, so there must be something in it :-k 

Guess I'll have to watch his video some time.

Hope you get into your workshop soon, Philly :wink: 

Paul


----------



## MikeW (30 Apr 2006)

Oh, I dunno. I've always used a straight-edged plane to joint with. It was how I was taught.

Single board is my preference, but I have and do use multiple boards at times. Putting two boards evenly into a vise is simple--for someone use to it, but it doesn't seem an issue when I show people in classes...

But I don't use a block plane to knock off high spots--but nice to know it works, Philly. So thanks for the tip.

One of these days I guess I need to find someone proficient with using a cambered blade to joint with to show me how. Never could get the hang of it, at least consistently. I don't know why it worked some and not most of the time. I can actually explain it to others, though, and some have gotten the hang of it. But I don't know if they have stuck with it and gotten consistent results over time.

Perhaps the real problem for me lies between my ears--I still can't understand why using a straight edged-plane to produce a square, straight edge is less efficient or not faster than using a cambered blade.

Maybe I should break down and actually purchase a Charlesworth book or DVD...

Take care, Mike


----------



## Philly (30 Apr 2006)

Mike
Hope it comes in handy some day.
I just cannot remove wind from an edge with a straight blade-The edge is straight, yes, but the wind just will not go away. Removing the high parts with a cambered blade just works. Guess I should set my power jointer up properly :lol: (_quickly ducks and runs_)
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Alf (30 Apr 2006)

MikeW":3gp9zhcd said:


> One of these days I guess I need to find someone proficient with using a cambered blade to joint with to show me how.


My door is always open, Mike. Bring your saw filing kit... :wink: 

Oh wait, he said _proficient_. #-o

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MikeW (30 Apr 2006)

Alf":2puup0lf said:


> MikeW":2puup0lf said:
> 
> 
> > One of these days I guess I need to find someone proficient with using a cambered blade to joint with to show me how.
> ...


Oh, that would be great! Me thinks you are plenty proficient.

Let's see. If I was able to put together at least an order of 50 saw kits, with workshops provided at a small cost to put them together--and of course on the last day to teach sharpening...it would pay for a trip. At least as long as at each stop I had a place provided to stay...

Maybe even be able to personally deliver a few completed saws. Yep, I could afford the trip.

We've actually though about this to Australia. 3 stops across the country and enough kits and classes.

Ah, the dream of a trip! We've always wanted to go to England. Somewhere we have the location of our family's birthplace there. My adopted name is Wenzloff--the birth name is Reed...

Take care, Mike


----------



## Philly (30 Apr 2006)

Mike
My house is yours (wherever that happens to be :wink: ) Be a lot of fun!
Had another thought-I bought a jointer fence from Veritas a little while ago-need to dig it out from a box somewhere. :roll: Maybe that would allow me to joint with a straight blade AND remove wind. Anyone with one tried it??
Cheers
Philly


----------



## MikeW (30 Apr 2006)

It would be a great trip!

I have a Stanley #386 and so use it for some tasks. I have used the magnetic LV fence at a woodworking show and it works well.

My feeling is that if someone who actually has their tools unpacked :lol: and has a method that works for them, all else is a novelty or simply another method to teach, recommend to others, or personal enrichment. That's the line I feed myself as regards using a cambered edge for jointing. Probably it would be more accurate I hate not being able to master something I attempt :roll: 

The issue of jointing is akin to sharpening--but without as many choices. The main problem is simply to pick a method, believe in it and practice. If there remains an obstacle to getting positive results, try another method. An attached fence requires less attention as to the squareness and allows one to concentrate more on the result.

Which is probably why I like an attached fence--I don't have to think as much :lol: When shaping angled edges, the fences with a pivotable fence make it an easy task. This is what I do use my fence the most on.

Take care, Mike


----------



## Alf (30 Apr 2006)

Mike,

Effendi, my tent is your tent; my camel, your camel; my saw sharpening mountain, _your_ saw shar- erm, scrub that last bit...  'Course it's easy to say when you live in the back of beyond and thus probably perfectly safe from ever having your camel called upon.  Be very cool if something could be worked out though. 8) 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## mr (30 Apr 2006)

MikeW":3vedcsph said:


> Let's see. If I was able to put together at least an order of 50 saw kits,


Hands up 50 people


----------



## Alf (30 Apr 2006)

Or 25 people putting both hands up...?

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (30 Apr 2006)

MikeW":7u2uzrsa said:


> Perhaps the real problem for me lies between my ears--I still can't understand why using a straight edged-plane to produce a square, straight edge is less efficient or not faster than using a cambered blade.


Hi Mike, 

Well if a Master Craftsman like you doesn't understand it either, I don't feel so bad about myself :wink: 

One of the problems about planing one board at a time is that I've seen beginners struggling so much with trying to get one board, let alone two, with a 90 degree edge, that they have just given up. But when they plane the two boards together, they seem to achieve success straight away - and success breeds success.

I suppose it also comes down to how you were taught. People tend to stick with what they know works.

By the way, I have some saws that need sharpening as well :wink: :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (30 Apr 2006)

Hi Paul

Another vote for Charlesworth and cambered blades here. I don't plane boards to joint them together very often, usually the board is the side of a cabinet or box and I i need a good edge that is perpendicular to the front - the two boards method is not for me :wink: 

Bet you guessed I was chuffed to see LV are bringing out a cambered roller for the mkII


----------



## Paul Chapman (30 Apr 2006)

Tony":3pgc1yva said:


> Hi Paul
> 
> Another vote for Charlesworth and cambered blades here. I don't plane boards to joint them together very often, usually the board is the side of a cabinet or box and I i need a good edge that is perpendicular to the front - the two boards method is not for me :wink:
> 
> Bet you guessed I was chuffed to see LV are bringing out a cambered roller for the mkII



Hi Tony,

You needed an excuse to buy a new tool?? :? 

Seriously, I'm impressed with LV's response to customer needs and demands with so many of their products 8) 

Paul


----------



## Paul Kierstead (1 May 2006)

Paul Chapman":elm6kz2z said:


> The way I was taught at school back in the 1950s was the way described in "Planecraft".
> 
> ...
> 
> Over the years I have found this method foolproof and I just can't fathom how David's method is better or even as good.



The match planing method only works for glue laminations; if you actually need a precise 90 degree joint, then you must use some other method.

I don't see the two methods as exclusive, and use both regularly (I have a plane set up for each). I find for glue joints that match planing is extremely easy and fast (assuming the boards are ballpark close to start with), but still use the charlesworth method when I need 90. I will admit I am trying to wean myself off the cambered blade though (but not there yet...)


----------



## Shady (1 May 2006)

> Perhaps the real problem for me lies between my ears--I still can't understand why using a straight edged-plane to produce a square, straight edge is less efficient or not faster than using a cambered blade.



Funnily enough, this was my reaction to David's stuff when I first read it. However, at the risk of being corrected by him, should he 'graze' this thread, I spent some time mucking around with straight edges, cambered edges, and jointer fences:

I had a sudden moment of revelation when I realised that I don't actually think David claims that for his technique; it's not about efficiency or speed, it's just that he takes the view that, essentially, with a straight edge and no fence, you need black magic - or years and years of practice - to guarantee a 90 degree and straight edge - there is effectively no way, other than 'feel', to assess whether or not you are producing a right angled edge with respect to the face of the board...

He has, in his usual painstaking way, identified a method that allows you to assess the degree of '90-degreeness' unemotionally, and correct it, in a progressive and (relatively) simple way. Not fast, but when I'm after 90 degrees and not match planing, it ends up being fastest (and cheapest) for me, because I don't ruin 15 pieces of stock trying to generate an accurate cut... 

Does any of that make sense? I'm writing with a 'cheer up depressed partner' half a bottle of champagne down my neck... :wink:

(edit:


> The match planing method only works for glue laminations


 precisely Paul - and welcome to the boards!)


----------



## Philly (1 May 2006)

Shady
Some good points-nice one! Especially after a few :wink: 
Paul
Welcome to the forum!
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Newbie_Neil (2 May 2006)

Hi Paul

Welcome to the forum.

Cheers
Neil


----------



## Jasper Homminga (2 May 2006)

Paul, 

Welcome
Though, I believe I've seen your name before (which does not make you any less welcome of course). 



Paul Kierstead":a6gplqzp said:


> I will admit I am trying to wean myself off the cambered blade though


 I would love to know why you don't like the cambered blade method? What will you use instead? 

Jasper


----------



## Paul Kierstead (2 May 2006)

Jasper Homminga":bxl7bcsn said:


> Paul Kierstead":bxl7bcsn said:
> 
> 
> > I will admit I am trying to wean myself off the cambered blade though
> ...



Well, "don't like" isn't really the issue. I like the cambered blade method, but it has some limitations, the biggest being that you have to have a somewhat aggressively cambered blade (a fuzzy term I know, but you know, more cambered the it might be otherwise). Now lots of time you want to work with smaller pieces of wood and hence smaller planes, possibly ones without a cambered blade. Or perhaps I want to use my largest plane, which also has a straight blade. Or, actually the most common scenario: I often use my jack to knock off the bandsaw marks (or even rip-saw) or otherwise 'rough in' the edge. I would really like to be able to get this as close to square as possible 'by instinct', which of course really means developing a sense of square. So, every time I rought in an edge, I practice trying to get it very square without repeatedly checking the edge or using any advantage of the camber in my jack. In the *long* run, I think this will work out better, but I still like the cambered blade along the way since I think it will take quite a bit of time to develop a really solid sense of square, although I can notice it improving.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (2 May 2006)

There are all sorts of ways of getting edge joints prepared ready for gluing. Cambered or curved blades work for some. I've used the method effectively. Others prefer a straight blade and match planing.

However, no-one has mentioned simply tilting the plane over to square an edge. The blade of my try plane is straight. I usually prepare edges by doing one edge at a time, but I'll match plane if the mood takes me.

If an edge is out of square I tilt the plane to take off the high side. Even if the edge is in winding you can tilt the plane first one way and then the other as you go. It's remarkable how highly tuned you become at sensing what is square to a face and what isn't with time and practise. With time and practise it's perfectly feasible to tilt a plane one way and then another by as little as a 1/4º or 1/2º either way.

Another trick that can be used to take off the high side of an edge is to shift the plane across so that the plane blade only spans about half of the width of the edge. The left or right corner of the cutting edge of the blade runs roughly down the middle of the board edge width. Get this high side of the boards edge at a right angle to the face and follow up with a full width shaving or two.

It's also possible to slightly bend a metal plane in the length as you use it which can be useful because it slightly increases or decreases the cut you make. Grip the handles at the front and back firmly and twist your wrists towards each other to either make the sole slightly convex or concave. For instance, if it's my intention to take a slightly deeper cut in the middle of a long edge I start the cut as normal by simply moving the plane forward. As the plane progresses I'll twist the top of my hands gripping the handles firmly towards each to bend the sole convex. As I move towards the end of the cut I relax the twisting and let the plane sole straighten out. Slainte.


----------



## Philly (2 May 2006)

"It's also possible to slightly bend a metal plane in the length as you use it"-Crikey, Richard!! :shock: 
I'm sure you're right but it's not for me.
FOr me, the main advantage of the cambered blade is NOT having to be super skilled. As I am only a hobby woodworker I don't get the practise to keep my "skills" honed. Otherwise a straight blade would do me good! :lol: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Chris Knight (2 May 2006)

Richard,
I think tilting was the first method I tried but I could never get it right doing it that way. It probably amounts to the same thing but an alternative that does work for me is to hang the rear end of the plane off the work by skewing it enough and letting the weight of the plane do the tilting itself so that it takes a thicker shaving from the side nearest the back of the plane. However, this shortens the effective sole length and there is a danger of not leaving a straight edge if too short.

I have never heard of twisting the plane, the mind boggles! (I mean how do you avoid permanent damage?? :lol: )


----------



## MikeW (2 May 2006)

One can also just use that little lever to cant the plane blade to take a slightly thicker shaving for a pass or two... :lol: 

Take care, Mike


----------



## Philly (2 May 2006)

But that doesn't help with an edge in wind, Mike. :wink: 
Philly


----------



## MikeW (2 May 2006)

> But that doesn't help with an edge in wind, Mike.


In wind, one just pushes that little lever so the blade has an even reveal/square to the sole :wink: 

Now, out of wind in various spots, and used locally, it's no different in practice--ok, it's similar--to using a cambered blade :lol: 

Out of wind evenly, well, one just takes a pass or two down the full length with that lever revealing a bit more blade on the high side and then the little lever is adjusted again for an even cut... :shock: 

This assumes, of course, one's plane has the little lever. On woodies, just a tap or two to against the side of the blade to tilt, a tap or two to even it back up.

All this assumes that either we are cutting boards without square edges, or cut them unsquare; using rough wood; or maybe even boards dimensioned by someone else and they are unsquare for whatever reason. I usually have rough sawn. So when I dimension my boards, the last part of the process is trimming to width [and length]. I find making the cut square to begin with only leaves saw marks to remove as the edge is already square to the face...

Take care, Mike


----------



## Jake (2 May 2006)

You need a LN Third Hand, Philly.


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 May 2006)

This is producing some interesting techniques  

The other issue I have with the "Planecraft" technique (ie straight blade and plane both boards together) as opposed to the "Charlesworth" technique (cambered blade, plane boards individually and hollow in the length) is that we are preparing two boards for gluing together.

In the days when "Planecraft" was written, woodworkers tended to use hide glue and rubbed joints (with or without sash cramps). It was therefore important that both boards were flat at their joining edges.

It seems to me that the "Planecraft" technique achieves this.

The "Charlesworth" technique of using a cambered blade and deliberately planing the boards hollow introduces hollowness in the length and across the edges. It seems to me that this then requires the use of cramps not only to hold the work while the glue dries but also to compensate for hollowness in the length and across the edges of the boards.

I have no problems with any of this, because it clearly works successfully for many people. However, as it seems to go against everything that I was taught and what seems to me to be logical, I have difficulty in seeing the logic in the cambered blade, one board at a time and plane hollow in the length approach.

Maybe I'll change my mind when I've seen DC's DVD :?

Paul


----------



## Philly (2 May 2006)

Mike
Sorry, should of been more explicit. When the edge is in wind in varying amounts, in different parts of the edge. As you say, a tweak of the blade adjuster and job done. :wink: 
Some days I just can't edge joint boards to my satisfaction. Other days I don't have to work at it. Sounds like my golf game........ :lol: :roll: 
Jake
Have checked on the Lie-Nielsen website-the "third hand" is still out of stock. Thinking of getting one in rosewood and bronze :wink: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Anonymous (2 May 2006)

I've always always used a try plane (cambered edge) to try and true edges and a jointer (straight blade) to joint the edge for glue up. That probably isn't necessary except for rubbed joints but it is what I'm used to. :lol: I usually match plane unless the combined thickness of the two pieces is wider than my jointer blade.
When I got my C&W try plane, the blade was sharpened straight across. I was working on some 3' long boards and tried to edge joint them with the C&W. I couldn't get the wind out with the straight blade. I used a #5 with a cambered bladed to square the edge and plane a small hollow in the center and then took passes with the C&W until I got a full length shaving. The resulting joint was very good.
To keep boards together for match planing, I put the jointed edges down on the bench to align them and then clamp the boards together. If clamps would be in the way, I sometimes use a small brad with the head cut as an alignment pin on each end (the face sides go out so the small hole is normally not important).


----------



## Philly (2 May 2006)

Makes a lot of sense-thanks Roger!
Philly


----------



## MikeW (2 May 2006)

Philly":c9mcwbl8 said:


> Mike
> Sorry, should of been more explicit. When the edge is in wind in varying amounts, in different parts of the edge. As you say, a tweak of the blade adjuster and job done. :wink:
> Some days I just can't edge joint boards to my satisfaction. Other days I don't have to work at it. Sounds like my golf game........ :lol: :roll:


I think we have a failure to communicate <g>.
I'll try to clarify myself and then let this thread go.

An in wind board [specifaclly a board's edge here] cannot have wind in varying amounts. It's either in or out of wind, even if that in wind state is out of square to the face [assuming one wants it square to the face]. It can have high spots which the surface of is in wind to the remainder of the board.

A board with the edge out of wind edge would have varying amounts of out-of-squareness [i.e. bevel] of itself to the [hopefully in wind] face. Assuming here that one wants it square to the face.

So. An adjustment of the lateral adjusting lever to remove an in wind but out of square edge in order to make it square to the face is simply one or more passes with the lateral adjustment lever taking the high side of the edge. Full passes thus adjusted.

Locally, the assumption is the board's edge is in the main or at least partially in wind to itself and perhaps square to the face [but not necessarily so] and an adjustment of the lateral adjustment lever allows one to bring the out of wind local areas in wind to the remainder of the edge. At which point, the edge still may not be square to the face. If the edge is now in wind, but not square to the face [or the beveled state one desires] the lateral adjustment lever is again moved to allow full length shavings.

After one full width, full length shaving and the board is now square to the face--stop. Done. 

If it is in wind and out of square [and it is desired to be thus], one can leave the lateral adjustment lever to remove more high-side shaving and check for square with each pass or two, or make a further adjustment to the lateral adjustment lever to take more/less off as one approaches square. Once square, the lateral adjustment lever is set to square the blade to the plane and another pass or whatever is taken.

As well, merely tilting a plane as mentioned works, too. I also use this method, though less than using the lateral adjustment lever.

Now, users of a cambered edge may see the movement of the lateral adjusting lever as a nuisance in order to achieve what one can accomplish with a cambered blade by simply making on-the-fly adjustment of the position of the plane itself on the board's edge.

May be true. I cannot fully get the hang of it. I have varying results. But I can nearly always true a board without muss or fuss the way above. On those off days I have, it takes but a minute or two to throw the #386 on in order to use it. Takes me longer to refill my coffee cup and take a sip.

Take care, Mike


----------



## Alf (2 May 2006)

Roger Nixon":23t91ew7 said:


> To keep boards together for match planing, I put the jointed edges down on the bench to align them and then clamp the boards together.


But you need boards of similar width for that technique. :? 

Paul (both of them I think!), I have a feeling you may be imaging a considerably greater camber than is actually the case. :-k

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Kierstead (2 May 2006)

Alf":3sqfi7nu said:


> Roger Nixon":3sqfi7nu said:
> 
> 
> > To keep boards together for match planing, I put the jointed edges down on the bench to align them and then clamp the boards together.
> ...



Well, I put the edges which are to be planed down and then flip. Of course, with boards over a 3 or 4 feet long that doesn't work so well.



> Paul (both of them I think!), I have a feeling you may be imaging a considerably greater camber than is actually the case. :-k



I use about 4 thou, as per Gorman's suggestion (http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/edgeplaning/squareedgeindex.htm)

It works well. But still, when the boards allow it, match planing is *really* quick and easy. I would add mostly foolproof, but will also admit that the first few times it didn't come out quite right and needed repeat tries. Now, I very very rarely need a repeat try; put togather, plane, fits first time. I did five panels a couple of weeks ago with hide glue, rubbed only this way. I have no idea what I do different now then when I started doing it, just got a bit of a knack for it I think.

But one thing that tends to drive me crazy about forums is the dogma of the one best way (or worse, tool, or worse um, n/m) , so I am certainly not going to tell you it is the best, only that it is fast'n'easy, but possibly not more so then other methods. And doesn't work very well if the pieces are 1-1/2" thick.....


----------



## Shady (2 May 2006)

> But one thing that tends to drive me crazy about forums is the dogma of the one best way (or worse, tool, or worse um, n/m) , so I am certainly not going to tell you it is the best, only that it is fast'n'easy, but possibly not more so then other methods.



Hang on, hang on - we don't do common-sense realism around here: get on your soap-box and DICTATE MY WAY!!!! :wink: You'll never enjoy the forums if you don't get dogmatic - and that's a fact....


----------



## Sgian Dubh (2 May 2006)

Mike, I'm not sure I entirely follow the lateral lever adjustment method you described. 

Sometimes a board edge will have a high spot that runs diagonally, for example, from the beginning of the cut at the far right corner to the end of the cut at the near left corner-- in winding. I'm assuming right handed plane use for this description

That's where I'll use the tilting plane technique. 

I tilt the top of the plane a bit to the right at the beginning of the cut. Then let the plane level out in the middle. Lastly I tilt the top of the plane a bit to the left at the end of the cut. It's all done in one pass.

I can't see how adjusting the blade to stick out more on one side or the other of the sole and leaving it at that setting to the end of the cut would fix the in winding problem. 

I'd want to adjust which corner of the blade sticks out from the sole of the plane as it progresses along the edge. But I can't do that as both hands are gripping the handles, and even if I could adjust as the blade moves I couldn't tell by how much I'd made an adjustment.

That's why I tilt the plane one way or another as I travel the length of the edge. 

I'm not really sure how I learnt the tilting plane trick though. I can only think that by having to regularly prepare truly rough sawn wood square many moons ago entirely by hand I learnt to read the edge squareness in relation to a true face quite well. I suppose I got the knack for tilting a plane during initial squaring of the very out of square edges to get them close to square in the first few cuts.

I can only guess that the ability I seem to have to tilt a plane fairly accurately by a 1/4 or a 1/2º is a refinement or extension of that long ago learnt knack for getting an edge square to a face. Slainte.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (2 May 2006)

Chris, we're not talking about major bending of the sole, just a hair or so. I've never tried to measure the bend I can force or twist into the sole of a plane. I just know it can be bent a bit-- enough anyway to make a differenc to the thickness of shaving that's taken.

I've never tried to bend the sole of anything shorter than a metal jack plane. But I'm darned sure I can bend the sole of a No. 7 or No. 8, metal plane, especially at either end of the sole where the reinforcement (U shaped channel body) peters out.

I've never been able (as far as I'm aware) to bend a sole enough in the length to cause permanent damage to any of the parts. 

Everything has to have a bit of flexibility in it, even cast iron or steel girders, otherwise there'd surely be no strength in structures. For instance, even skyscrapers, made of metal girders flex and give in winds. If they didn't they'd surely be brittle and crack at the slightest shock. Well, that's my theory anyway, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## mr (2 May 2006)

Sgian Dubh":1sas7bb6 said:


> But I'm darned sure I can bend the sole of a No. 7 or No. 8, metal plane, especially at either end of the sole where the reinforcement (U shaped channel body) peters out.
> .



That sounds like quite a feat of strength to me, though if you say it's so then I won't doubt you - though I am wondering whether the force you're inputing to the ends of the plane is resulting in a change to your technique rather than a flex in the plane body itself. Of course if that was the case I suspect it would reproduce the effect regardless of plane length unless the body length has some kind of effect on the result as well. 
Cheers Mike


----------



## Wiley Horne (2 May 2006)

Richard's description (Sgian Dubh) is the clearest description I have seen for the method I have evolved to. It's satisfying because it's so freestyle. Woodie jointers seem to be particularly well adapted to it (although I love Richard's method of bending his metal jointer!) because they are so light and manueverable, and are instantly biased one way or the other with thumb pressure from the lead hand.

There are many paths to the same goal--each should find his/her own.

Thanks for bringing up this topic, Philly, it's a favorite!

Wiley


----------



## engineer one (2 May 2006)

at the risk of being called a philistine, what about the LV fence
which you attach with the rare earth magnets. surely the whole aim
of that is to allow you to create an edge which is at right angles
to the face ????

i believe it is also called a jointer fence :lol: :lol: 

i have seen and tried dc's method with him there at
axminster show last year, and agree that it does work,
but, not for every one i think, it relies too much on a developed skill
which few have time to master.

why not plane two boards on a long shooting board, but laid flat???

paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Kierstead (2 May 2006)

engineer one":3rrkd0q5 said:


> at the risk of being called a philistine, what about the LV fence
> which you attach with the rare earth magnets. surely the whole aim
> of that is to allow you to create an edge which is at right angles
> to the face ????



Philistine.



I have one and use it occasionally. I find with a large heavy plane, it is more difficult then expected to keep the fence against the face of the board. Additionally the plane is off balance exacerbating the problem. Furthermore, it tends to run into the vise for a narrow board. But all that said, it works well under some conditions, especially on those days I don't seem to be able to see straight. Last couple of times I use it, it was ok. I hate it when I forget to check for the vise thing though, and run into it hard...


there are also those 90 degree plane thingies. I got the LV one, and think it is large a POS, but who knows...


----------



## Alf (3 May 2006)

Paul Kierstead":2eptb19v said:


> there are also those 90 degree plane thingies.


I wish folks wouldn't use such technical jargon... :wink:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## mudman (3 May 2006)

Paul Kierstead":3q4101bl said:


> Philistine.



Isn't that what Philly drinks his beer out of? :roll: 

Jeff Gorman has an article on plane body deflection here so the bending of the plane in use doesn't sound all that far-fetched.


----------



## Paul Chapman (3 May 2006)

As the first one on this thread to question the "Charlesworth" technique, I want to say that I have just watched David Charlesworth's DVD and I am impressed.

When I read his book, I just didn't get what he was on about. Having seen the DVD and seen that he is talking about a couple of fag papers-worth of hollowness, and his curved blade approach is part if a methodical, precision technique, it has all become clear.

It really is a good DVD and an example of how difficult it can be to explain a technique in words alone, whereas when you see it in action it becomes crystal clear.

I would certainly recommend the DVD to anyone starting out with planing or having problems in squaring up a piece of wood. David is a very good teacher who explains very clearly what he is doing and why. And he is talking about the nth degree of precision.

Am I an instant convert? I don't think so - but there is much food for thought in what he advocates and I think my planing will gain a lot from having seen his DVD.

Paul


----------



## bugbear (3 May 2006)

Sgian Dubh":o1vslvsk said:


> I can only guess that the ability I seem to have to tilt a plane fairly accurately by a 1/4 or a 1/2º is a refinement or extension of that long ago learnt knack for getting an edge square to a face. Slainte.



That's amazing. A 1/4 degree slant on a 5 inch high tote results in the top of the tote moving by tan(1/4) * 5" = 0.02" (2 hundredths).

BugBear


----------



## Sgian Dubh (3 May 2006)

I've no idea what the exact angle is Paul. I've never bothered with doing sums on the technique nor even measured the angle I tilt by. I just seem to be able to work out that the high side of an edge needs a bit off about 'like that', or perhaps a bit less or more at about 'something like that.' And sometimes a bit of tilting is required in different directions at different points in the length.

I also mentioned in an earlier post taking a half width shaving off a high edge by hanging the plane to one side so that the corner of the blade travels somewhere down the middle of the edge width.

Combine these two techniques with the other technique I'm pretty sure I accomplish of slightly bending the sole every now and then and I find I can create edges suitable for edge joinery with success reasonably quickly on most occasions. It's not always easy and I do get it wrong from time to time. On those occassions where things aren't working as they should I have to stop, work out where I'm going wrong and correct the errors. It happens to all of us.

I'm not saying the method I use is the only correct method. There are plenty of others, eg, the curved or cambered blade method that's been getting a fresh airing over the last couple or three years. I was shown and practised the technique some years ago. I can get it to work pretty well but I don't use it now unless I come across a worker or learners plane that's got a curved blade and I'm demonstrating edge joinery techniques to them with their plane. 

The curved blade technique I'd guess came about because the tools in the workshops I was in when I started in this line of work were all pretty much sharpened on oilstones. There weren't really many other choices except abrasive paper on a flat surface, or a rare imported Arkansas stone or something else exotic. 

Pretty much all the reasonably well used, or very well used oilstones I ever came across at that time tended to be a bit hollow anyway-- they automatically tended to put a slight curve on a cutting edge. Certainly my own oilstones got slightly hollow and stayed that way most of the time in the days when I used oilstones. It's been at least a couple of decades since I used oilstones regularly and I use ceramic stones now. I find I have to intentionally put a curve on a blade with these sharpening stones if it's a curved blade I want.

Anyway, all I know is I can usually tilt a plane ever so slightly to make an adjustment and bring the edge of the wood back square to the face. It was only around the mid '80's that I realised I could do this pretty well to quite fine tolerances but, by then, I'd been fooling around with planes and wood on and off for nearly twenty years. Slainte.


----------



## Colin C (3 May 2006)

bugbear":cu5zucfb said:


> Sgian Dubh":cu5zucfb said:
> 
> 
> > I can only guess that the ability I seem to have to tilt a plane fairly accurately by a 1/4 or a 1/2º is a refinement or extension of that long ago learnt knack for getting an edge square to a face. Slainte.
> ...


 :-s my head hurts :?


----------



## Frank D. (4 May 2006)

Sgian Dubh":2wf9wy6m said:


> I also mentioned in an earlier post taking a half width shaving off a high edge by hanging the plane to one side so that the corner of the blade travels somewhere down the middle of the edge width.


That's the technique I use, along with flexing the plane (sometimes) when I want a sprung joint. As of late I usually start off a rough edge with my #5 which has a cambered blade (about 1/16"); I try to get it fairly square and out of wind before I go at it with a jointer, so I guess I use several techniques to get there. Starting off with a jack speeds up things quite a bit and keeps my jointer sharper for longer.


----------



## MikeW (4 May 2006)

Sgian Dubh":2opoqpop said:


> I just know it can be bent a bit--





Frank D.":2opoqpop said:


> ...along with flexing the plane (sometimes) when I want a sprung joint...


So that's why I see vintage planes with cracked cheeks at the mouths...

Take care, Mike
duckin' 'n' runnin'...again...


----------



## Frank D. (4 May 2006)

MikeW":1lkjokid said:


> So that's why I see vintage planes with cracked cheeks at the mouths...
> 
> Take care, Mike
> duckin' 'n' runnin'...again...



You obviously haven't seen my jointer, Mike. It started out as a #8, but with a little judicious tuning, no cracked cheeks in my shop:


----------



## Philly (4 May 2006)

ROTFL :lol: 
Philly


----------



## MikeW (4 May 2006)

Frank D.":2j3gde28 said:


> MikeW":2j3gde28 said:
> 
> 
> > So that's why I see vintage planes with cracked cheeks at the mouths...
> ...


Now that is a good one. Judicious use of a file, I would say...

Thanks, Frank!


----------



## Alf (4 May 2006)

Frank, are you quite sure you've grasped which way the camber's supposed to go...? :lol: :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (4 May 2006)

Sgian Dubh":4vvll2hj said:


> I've no idea what the exact angle is Paul. I've never bothered with doing sums on the technique nor even measured the angle I tilt by.



Oh.

O.K.

I was going by what you said, which was rather specific as to the angular accuracy you're working to.

BugBear


----------



## Wiley Horne (4 May 2006)

The proof of the pudding....In context, the accuracy Sgian Dubh was talking about is the amount required to make the edge join disappear. The precision associated with this accuracy is the ability to do it again and again, in somewhat the same number of strokes. I suspect his intuitive estimates are conservative--in the context of edge joining. 


Wiley


----------



## Shady (4 May 2006)

> Pretty much all the reasonably well used, or very well used oilstones I ever came across at that time tended to be a bit hollow anyway-- they automatically tended to put a slight curve on a cutting edge. Certainly my own oilstones got slightly hollow and stayed that way most of the time in the days when I used oilstones. It's been at least a couple of decades since I used oilstones regularly and I use ceramic stones now. I find I have to intentionally put a curve on a blade with these sharpening stones if it's a curved blade I want.



Good point - reinforces my post somewhere else about the silliness of chasing 'absolute flatness', and whinging about waterstones' lack thereof...


----------



## Alf (4 May 2006)

My oilstones are flat...


----------



## Shady (4 May 2006)

> My oilstones are flat...



Alf: how flat, and how do you know? Seriously, if the answer is simply 'enough to do what I want', then I rest my case... If the answer is 'to 1 micron measured with a flatometric laser after an hour's dibbling with the flatomaker dobbler', then well done you, but my time in the shop is too short to do that...


----------



## Alf (4 May 2006)

Well straight edges and such don't show any light, if that's any use. 'Tis not much work to keep them in trim with my DMT every so often - not an option for craftsmen of yore of course. Freehand honing spreading the wear over the whole surface helps too.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (5 May 2006)

Alf":k13ef42g said:


> Well straight edges and such don't show any light, if that's any use. 'Tis not much work to keep them in trim with my DMT every so often - not an option for craftsmen of yore of course. Freehand honing spreading the wear over the whole surface helps too.
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Heh. I don't normally do this, but the coincidence is too much to ignore.

Here's a post I just made in a different thread on woodcentral.

I think modern woodworkers have become convinced that a sharpening surface must be (at least) as wide as the blade being sharpened.

Historically, this has not been possible. Older natural stones (in the 1850-1900 period) were typically 1 - 1 1/2 inches wide, and yet at this period typical large bench planes had blades of 2 1/2" (and in some cases even larger).

In practice this does not present a problem, especially when honing freehand. A simple sideways movement, done simultaneusly with the end-to-end stroke will suffice. Alternatively one can (in effect) sharpen sub-sections of the blade separately. When the blade is wider than the stone, one receieves an interesting benefit; the stone cannot become hollow in width. Given the amount of effort expended on keeping some sharpening media flat, this may be of interest.

Here's a quote from Walter Rose, written in the 30's but referring to the late 1800's:

http://nika.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswi ... 01#message

BugBear


----------



## Sgian Dubh (5 May 2006)

Paul, how does that help if, as is quite common with busy workshops, just one or two stones are used to sharpen everything from 1.5 mm wide chisels to plane irons 45 or 55 mm wide?

Wouldn't there be a tendency, with the best will and technique in the world, for the stones to develop a hollow of some sort, perhaps in both the width and the length? It always happened to my oilstones anyway, and I'm pretty handy at off-the-cuff freehand sharpening-- I've never had a choice on that front because it's always been a case of 'just get the job done, and never mind the niceties.'

Certainly in my career I can't think that I've ever really set aside stones that are used specifically for particular tools.

My plane irons get sharpened on the same stones as my chisels. There just isn't enough room in either a workshop based toolbox or in the jumble known as an on-site tool kit for a selection of stones or sharpening systems. One size tends to fit all I've found.

However, it's always been the case that, in a hole, and if you're stuck for a means of sharpening in a hurry, perhaps because you've stupidly left your stone and 3-in-1 oil in the workshop, that a bit of sandpaper on a flat surface will do---- or even stroking the tool up and down a smooth concrete step can sometimes get you by for now. Slainte.


----------



## Philly (6 May 2006)

Thanks to everyone for their informed answers-this has turned out to be a really interesting thread. And no "dado" style flaming either! :lol: 
I re-read the chapters in Planecraft and noticed that it does not mention how to remove wind from an edge. A fleeting mention of removing wind from a face side but not a whisper on edges. Why is that??? Do most folk just keep removing material until the edges magically straighten out or am I the only one to encounter edges in wind?
As an example, I was gluing up two pieces for a small table top. The boards were just over 6 inches wide and I needed a 12 inch wide top. The edges were in wind and after jointing the edges I was pretty darn close to 12 inches wide. To remove the wind I used Mr C's method and got away with taking only 3 or 4 swipes from each edge. To me, this method is great when you are limited by the amount of material you have. It is a bit "finicky" compared with running it over the power jointer a few times to straighten things out but allows you to true things up with minimal waste.
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Paul Chapman (6 May 2006)

Hi Philly,

Funny, I've been doing the same - re-reading Planecraft, re-reading DC's book and watching his DVD. I've also been trying to analyse what I do - probably because at the moment I am planing up lots of oak, from sawn, by hand and I am going to have to join it to make a 3ft diameter table. It's going to be thick so for the first time I won't be able to use my favoured "plane the two boards together" technique :shock: 

Thinking about what I normally do, I use a similar technique to DC. That is, putting pencil marks on the board to indicate where the high and low spots are and, if necessary moving the plane about across the thickness of the board. Also using his stop shaving technique where the board is high in the centre in relation to the ends. It's just that I've never given it so much thought before and I've been doing it that way for as long as I can remember.

Having watched his DVD I must say that I can now see the benefit of the curved blade. You can do it all with a straight blade but probably not with the precision and predictability of the curved blade approach. And you probably end up removing far more wood with the straight blade than you would with a curved blade. In the example you quoted where you have very little wood to play with, the curved blade technique (or the Phil Edward's block plane technique :wink: ) clearly has advantages in that you can achieve the required result with the removal of less material.

Anyway, I still have several miles of oak to plane, so by the time I finish I may have reached a definitive conclusion about all this :-k But then again.........

Paul


----------



## MikeW (6 May 2006)

Paul Chapman":12bwpnn4 said:


> ...so *by the time I finish I may have reached a definitive conclusion about all this* :-k _But then again_.........Paul


 :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Good luck <g>.

I think most woodworkers change their style of work over time to what works consistently for them. But, they may well change again given more time.

Didn't mean to pick on you, Paul. I just love the statement!

Take care, Mike


----------



## Philly (6 May 2006)

Paul
Thanks-hopefully whilst you work you'll be a lot more aware of what you're doing and come up with some more insights. Sorry if I got you thinking too much, though :roll: :lol: 
Mike
As you say, as time goes by the "enemies" method starts to make a little sense and we may even grudgingly come to accept it as our favorite. Until you try it all you never know what suits you best.
Getting awfully insightful here-must of been that second glass of wine.... :lol: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Wiley Horne (6 May 2006)

Paul's method of noting the 'high line' along the edge and planing it is an excellent one. 

An alternative which might be considered, and which I like, is to read the shaving. Set the board up in planing position, and start planing from the inside out--if you can take a shaving in the middle of the board, keep taking shavings until you can't take another, and keep working outwards towards the ends of the board. Meantime, as you are doing this, you are reading the shaving--Is it full width? Is it coming off the left side here and the right side there, or vice versa? What is happening is that you are bringing the board to true, both in the length and plumb to the sides, by working from the inside out, whilst watching your shavings get wider til they span the full width end to end. 

The final pass is end to end, with the blade just barely touching at the middle of the board, but not taking a shaving there. That's enough spring in our So. Cal. climate. Others may need different amounts of spring.

After what I hope is the final pass, take a small bevel edge square and go end to end to verify plumb. Or else use the very sensitive method (of DC I think) and put the stock of a small square on top of the board, the blade down the side, and check at a few places. What I like about this method is that you get into a rhythm and there is very little checking as you go to be done. The shaving tells you what you need to know. I use this method with a fairly straight blade.

Just something for your consideration. There are many roads to the goal. 

Wiley


----------



## Midnight (12 May 2006)

*Philly Wrote:-*


> FOr me, the main advantage of the cambered blade is NOT having to be super skilled. As I am only a hobby woodworker I don't get the practise to keep my "skills" honed. Otherwise a straight blade would do me good!



OK.. maybe it's cos I'm dead from the neck up or it's too late for thinkin...... but honestly.... I soooooooo don't get this... why go so far out of your way to make such a simple thing to execute so utterly complicated..???

simple answer..?? Shoot the damn thing and get *onnnnnnn* with it... curved blade, straight blade, match plane...< shudderin..>.... life's too short man.... geeze...

I built a real simple adjustable shooting board that takes all the fartin around out of the equasion.. reduces the equasion to just one line... how wide do you want the finished stick..????? One jig gives me 2 square edges that are parallel to each other and planed to finished width... thought free zone once the jig's set up and clamped down.. Straight blade (remember the KISS concept??) in the #9 and have at it... rocket science it aint...!![/b]


----------



## Paul Kierstead (12 May 2006)

Midnight":1ge2t1p5 said:


> I built a real simple adjustable shooting board that takes all the fartin around out of the equasion..



How long is the shooting board? How do you deal with it when it is too long?


----------



## Midnight (12 May 2006)

the board's 1220mm.... I've managed to deal with sock over double that length, using the same board to shot pieces as short as 150mm.. wide enough scope for ya...?

mad width of board it'll handle is a smidge over 300mm..


----------



## Philly (12 May 2006)

Thanks Midnight (we seem to have a LOT of Mikes around here now! :lol: )
Another angle-a shooting board. Any chance of a picture of your set-up or a description?
Cheers
Philly


----------



## GEPPETTO (12 May 2006)

Hi Guys,

I know, it could seem a little "strange" but, because my little experience or because I must translate and only after to know what the statement says, I think I have understood few or nothing  .
I have read somewhere that edge jointing can be done with a little hollow in the centre of the edge because the stuff remains so more stable. But I 
thought that it had to be done with a straight edge blade. What do matter a cambered blade? :roll: 

Could anyone to explain me "that method" like I would be a child of 4 years old?

Many cheers
Gabriele


----------



## bugbear (12 May 2006)

GEPPETTO":2si5bdu3 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I have read somewhere that edge jointing can be done with a little hollow in the centre of the edge because the stuff remains so more stable. But I
> thought that it had to be done with a straight edge blade. What do matter a cambered blade? :roll:
> ...



This is the best I know of, on the web:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoin ... eindex.htm

The point is that a cambered blade allows the taking of a tapered shaving. 

If the taper is in the correct direction, each pass can adjust the angle of the edge.

Since the taper can be rather small, and is anchored exactly by the plane's sole on the workpiece, the process can be rather accurate and controllable.

If the edge is VERY far from square this process is too slow, and the plane should simply be held as vertical as you can, until the error is smaller. then the fine control process can be used.

BugBear


----------



## Paul Kierstead (12 May 2006)

Midnight":2t0qcyp5 said:


> the board's 1220mm.... I've managed to deal with sock over double that length, using the same board to shot pieces as short as 150mm.. wide enough scope for ya...?



It is certainly an interesting idea. My first though was that you may have to clamp down larger pieces, but I expect it is no more trouble then clamping boards held edge up (I do envy those who can do it without clamping).

So, the question becomes: Why *don't* books/etc. recommend a very long shooting board? What is the downside?


----------



## Midnight (12 May 2006)

> What is the downside?



only one I've found is thatt he thing's so damn simple that it's never gonna be able to justify writing a book to blow wind up its whazzoo.. every silver lining has a cloud I guess...

as for it's description.. nothing to it really.. built from an offcut of 12mm ply I got tired of stubbing toes against..

built like a set of 3 steps... bottom one is the plain that the plane slides on, 2nd one is the depth stop, 3rd one's adjustable to give the width of finished stick.. I lock the sticks down with toggle clamps, fence adjustment is nothing more than a pair of Tee headed bolts and big hand nuts...

your mileage may vary..


----------

