# Low VS standard angle planes



## madge (27 May 2013)

Hello all, can anyone explain to me the advantage of a bevel down plane compared with bevel up? Bevel up seem to have a few advantages - the mouth can be adjusted more easily (at least on the veritas LAJ), the effective pitch can be altered simply by changing the sharpening angle so that end grain can be tackled with a low angle or difficult grain with high, and they seem to be slightly cheaper. In a David Charlesworth book I read recently he commented that he didn't think bevel up planes worked quite as well in standard situations but didn't explain why. Can anyone enlighten?


----------



## longinthetooth (27 May 2013)

What makes you think that you can't alter the angle of a bevel-down blade?


----------



## madge (27 May 2013)

A back bevel though can only raise the effective pitch and a high angle frog is expensive


----------



## dunbarhamlin (27 May 2013)

One point often glazed over is that returning an iron to common pitch from a higher angle is far easier with a bevel down plane, as only a (micro) back bevel need be removed.


----------



## custard (27 May 2013)

I'm guessing that David Charlesworth's concern with bevel up planes is twofold, the relative difficulty of lateral adjustment and cambering the blade. These aren't insurmountable problems, but these are the two issues that stop me using my LN bevel up jack on a daily basis. 

Reading David Charleworth's books it's clear that he puts great emphasis on using a cambered blade for stock squaring in general and edge shooting in particular. That's also the way I work. But that requires an easy and repeatable method of cambering the blade, I tried a few different ways of cambering a bevel up blade and even though I got there in the end I was never particularly comfortable with it, and likewise the lateral adjustment is just easier on a bevel down bedrock style plane.

But maybe David will be along to explain his concerns, I'd also be interested.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2013)

Bevel up planes all seem to have the same problem of poor adjustment. There's no room for the complicated (and highly effective) Bailey pattern of adjusters. The Norris adjuster looks good but doesn't work as well.
Stanley have stupidly followed fashion on this with their new SW planes with Norris adjusters. I suppose they are cheaper to make though.
But anyway I can't see any particular point in bevel up - except block planes where the compact design is good for one handed use.


----------



## madge (27 May 2013)

having not tried to camber a bevel up blade, what makes it different to cambering a bevel down?


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 May 2013)

Jacob":17t4ogbb said:


> Bevel up planes all seem to have the same problem of poor adjustment. There's no room for the complicated (and highly effective) Bailey pattern of adjusters.



The Lie Nielsen #164 and the #9 have a Bailey-style adjuster and it works very well http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?grp=1256 http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?grp=1257 Pity they don't use it on their other bevel-up planes.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2013)

Needs a deeper camber to get the same profile presenting to the wood. Just geometry. Otherwise no prob.


----------



## Corneel (27 May 2013)

There must be thousands and thousands of bevel down planes available on the second hand market at low prices. Stanleys and woodies. So price is an advantage of the bevel down design. 

You don't have a chipbreaker in a bevel up plane, the greatest invention in handplanes in the last 250 years.

In a bevel down plane the sharpening angle isn't very critical. Anything between 25 and 35 degrees is fine. Because in a bevel up plane the sharpening angle dictates the efective pitch, you need to sharpen more precisely.

Cambering was allready mentioned.

But of course I don't really know, because I don't have a bevel up plane apart from a small block plane.


----------



## Peter Sefton (27 May 2013)

I find the bevel down planes easier to adjust and set up, the extra weight of a Clifton 5 1/2 is great for removing stock.

The bevel up planes come into their own on difficult interlocked grain and its easier to hone a 50 degrees blade for most students than producing a repeatable back bevel on a standard bevel down plane at say 17 degrees.


----------



## speeder1987 (27 May 2013)

Interestingly i find my bevel up plane easier to setup, everything is much more visible, and there is less to line up. I suppose it is what you are used to. But i agree that that sharpening is more challenging with a bevel up plane.


----------



## custard (27 May 2013)

madge":1do3kfbq said:


> having not tried to camber a bevel up blade, what makes it different to cambering a bevel down?



Two things. 

To get the same effective camber on a bevel up blade requires a _much_ tighter radius, so a 20" radius camber on a bevel down blade might require a 5" radius camber on a bevel down plane (I'm guessing with these figures, but the principle's right). 

And to achieve those cambers on a bevel up blade requires far more metal to be removed, and that's a lot of work. 

I like using a cambered blade, and on a bevel down blade the camber's easy to produce using just finger pressure at the edges of the blade whilst honing, but to produce a comparable camber on a bevel up blade I had to make a jig and grind rather than hone the camber. I know some people persevered and seem to produce an acceptable camber on their bevel up blades as a matter of course, but I just found it all too much trouble for too little return, so now stick to bevel down planes. However, I keep dedicated bevel down planes with higher frogs and back bevels for difficult grain, and all my heavy planing is done by machine, so other woodworkers who work differently may come to different conclusions.


----------



## speeder1987 (27 May 2013)

One other thing I don't think has been mentioned, most bevel up planes (well the ones I have/seen, please correct if incorrect) have an adjustable mouth. This is really useful and adds to the versatility

John


----------



## marcus (27 May 2013)

One annoyance with Bevel Up planes is that if, say, you have set a tight mouth and then you want to take a deeper cut, you will have to open the mouth to advance the blade, otherwise the advancing blade closes the mouth up. Or vice versa. I find this really irritating.


----------



## bugbear (28 May 2013)

marcus":21r67r09 said:


> One annoyance with Bevel Up planes is that if, say, you have set a tight mouth and then you want to take a deeper cut, you will have to open the mouth to advance the blade, otherwise the advancing blade closes the mouth up. Or vice versa. I find this really irritating.



You'd need a wider mouth to pass the thicker shaving anyway.

Most low bedding angle planes have a sliding plate mouth adjustment. This is needed, as a lot of movement on the LA bed is needed to effect a depth adjustment (reductio ad absurdum; if the bed angle were zero, you obviously couldn't adjust the depth at all by moving the blade on the bed).

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (28 May 2013)

In bevel down planes you have no problems with thicker or thinner shavings, because you don't need a tight mouth. You've got a chipbreaker to deal with any tearout issues.

:mrgreen:


----------



## marcus (28 May 2013)

> You'd need a wider mouth to pass the thicker shaving anyway.



I find that with a BD you can set the mouth to a setting where it's tight enough to deal with most tear out but there's still enough opening to be able to take reasonably deep cuts if needed without having to change anything. That's how I have most of my planes set up most of the time, but I have found I can't do that with a BU without having to change the mouth, which doesn't take long on a BU, but is still annoying enough to put me off....

I have one BU up smoother that I keep set with a fine mouth which I use on very difficult grain, and I do find it's excellent for that.


----------



## woodbrains (28 May 2013)

Hello,

I recently got a Veritas LA jack, as much out of curiosity as anything. I was determined not to like the thing, as I had thoughts on the lack of versatility before I got it. I am glad to say that it was a revelation to me, it is superb. I do not think bevel up planes would completely replace my Bailey style planes, but I do know of some who have pretty much done that, so it is possible, money being no object, that if I had just started woodworking, I might have equipped myself with more BU planes than Baileys.

Regarding camber; I do not camber any of my planes except smothers and the amount of camber on these is marginal. For a smoother, the shaving thickness is very thin so too much camber just serves to narrow the blade width. I want my smothers to make a shaving 80 per cent of the blade width, and this requires very little, so clambering a BU smoother should not be too arduous, I would not let this put you off. If you do prefer a camber on jointers, then this might be an issue, but perhaps it would be better not to camber these as I do and change planing method slightly to compensate, if you do not use straight across blades already. I must admit, I find it easier to plane square with a flat blade and easy to correct if I have not, but that is me. I have to say that I do not camber my jack planes either, unless I know I am removing a lot of stock, which I seldom do these days since planer thicknesses do the brunt of this work. I do not mind track marks from a jack, since the smoother will remove these and as I approach swapping from jack to smoother, I will reduce the cut of the jack, so track marks are very light anyway. If the cambered blade is off putting, there are ways round it. 

The adjustable mouth is great for taming tear out. A cap iron is useful, but it seems that people are less aware that a fine mouth is at least as effective as a cap iron. Since BU planes do not have cap irons, the adjustable mouth is very effective and easy to alter. For final smoothing strokes, the mouth setting on these planes can be set finer more easily than any others, so even without changing the lower EP, tear out is often no worse than with a common pitched plane. 

Back bevels on common pitched planes are useful and I use them often, but raising the EP of a LA plane is no harder to do. A micro bevel is a micro bevel, so reverting to the standard blade bevel is just the same. It is spurious to say it is easier to remove a back bevel on a regular plane. In any case, it is better to have a couple of irons for different applications, whichever plane is used. Removing micro bevels just wastes metal, if this is done often enough.

My advice is to try the BU plane. I do not think you will regret it, they are very good, and very well made, too. 

Mike.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (10 Jun 2013)

One interesting thing to add to the conversation is that of blade wear.
As you use a plane, the lower face of the iron tends to be the one that wears (the one lowermost in the plane)
This means that on a BD plane, the wear happens on the bevel side, meaning that a quick sharpen will get rid of any wear.
On a BU plane however, the wear happens on the flat side of the iron, making it much harder to hone out the wear. (Either one has to flatten the whole iron through the wear, which I don't advise as you'd soon end up with a micro thin iron! Or one has to grind the bevel back much more frequently in order to counteract the wear)
It is for this reason that I have switched almost entirely to BD planes, and seeing as I made my block plane, I put a 32˚ bed angle on it. Voila! A block plane with as low an angle as is really possible on a BU plane!

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":vr41aiwd said:


> ........
> It is for this reason that I have switched almost entirely to BD planes, and seeing as I made my block plane, I put a 32˚ bed angle on it. Voila! A block plane with as low an angle as is really possible on a BU plane!
> 
> Fraser


Except it's not a good block plane. A block plane needs to be bevel up in order to make it compact and one handleable. This seems to be their only raison d'etre and the reason why they have been popular and used continuously since first introduced. They never went out of fashion like the larger and somewhat pointless BU planes (Stanley 62, were there others?).

PS Finally dumped (ebay) my LV la smoother as I couldn't see the point of such an expensive plane, so I don't have any BU planes except Stanley 220, 110, block planes.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (11 Jun 2013)

Jacob":xd81iyi4 said:


> Duncumb.fc":xd81iyi4 said:
> 
> 
> > ........
> ...



I beg to differ, my plane is the same size as my Stanley 18 1/2 and I use it one handed almost daily... Pictures can be found here

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":17fbrw66 said:


> .....
> I beg to differ, my plane is the same size as my Stanley 18 1/2 and I use it one handed almost daily... Pictures can be found here
> 
> Fraser


It's not the size it's the sticking out blade. Obviously you can use any plane one handed, with varying degrees of difficulty, but the familiar low angle stanley 220 and similar all feature that rounded top end/handle thing, designed for comfortable one handed use, made possible by the low angle.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (11 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":3jfmsxgt said:


> One interesting thing to add to the conversation is that of blade wear.
> As you use a plane, the lower face of the iron tends to be the one that wears (the one lowermost in the plane)
> This means that on a BD plane, the wear happens on the bevel side, meaning that a quick sharpen will get rid of any wear



How interesting. I was wondering whether quite the reverse might be true as an advantage of bevel up; I thought that as the shaving is lifted off over the upper surface of the blade it might cause most wear there, But I am quite happy to be wrong, since I only have one bevel up plane and erm, a few  bevel down ones.


----------



## Corneel (11 Jun 2013)

i am wondering too. I know from the "scientific" research with microscopes and such that the wear bevel at the underside of the blade is larger then at the upper side (under and upper when seen as the plane is being used). But how much is that really a problem in reality? With a bit of finger pressure near the edge when the blade lies flat on the stone you can quickly remove a lot of wear. 

This wear is caused by the spring back of the woodfibers. Most low angle planes have only 12 degrees of relief angle. So maybe in a plane with 20 degree relief angle the problem isn't half as bad? I only have one bevel up plane, a QS low angle block, and I don't find sharpening taking more trouble then on my bevel down planes. But I don't use it very often so ultimately I just don't know.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (11 Jun 2013)

Corneel":1af74zju said:


> i am wondering too. I know from the "scientific" research with microscopes and such that the wear bevel at the underside of the blade is larger then at the upper side (under and upper when seen as the plane is being used). But how much is that really a problem in reality? With a bit of finger pressure near the edge when the blade lies flat on the stone you can quickly remove a lot of wear.
> 
> This wear is caused by the spring back of the woodfibers. Most low angle planes have only 12 degrees of relief angle. So maybe in a plane with 20 degree relief angle the problem isn't half as bad? I only have one bevel up plane, a QS low angle block, and I don't find sharpening taking more trouble then on my bevel down planes. But I don't use it very often so ultimately I just don't know.



I think probably all of these things are a bit of a storm in a teacup, and actually in practice it matters very little
However, I had a look at my bevel up block plane blade, and there is definite wear, and it's definitely visible to the eye.
Whilst it's true that a bit of extra pressure can sort that problem out, of course over (a long) time you're going to end up with a double bevel iron!
I've seen people do that with chisels, and paring gouges too, and I really don't recommend it. While it's less critical on a plane iron, I would say it's a bad habit to get into...

One thing worth saying too, is that when you store your planes make sure you do one of 3 things.
1. Lay the plane on its side
2. Retract the blade completely above the sole of the plane
3. Set up a block of wood to go under the toe to lift it off the surface. I.e. the plane is at an angle and thus the extended blade is not in contact with anything.
That way, you can reduce the wear for any time other than using them!
I favour No.1 for no particular reason, just what I'm in the habit of doing.

Fraser


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (11 Jun 2013)

One could begin by talking of cutting angles. 

If you work with interlocked grain, a high cutting angles helps greatly in reducing tear out. Achieving the high angles is easier using a BU plane - simply alter the secondary bevel on bevel face. Unless it has a high enough bed/frog, a BD plane will require two bevels - one on each side of the blade. 

Low cutting/included angles are also the domain of the BU plane. Planing across the grain and end grain is best served by a low cutting angle. Few BD planes can go below common pitch. The 12 degree bed of the BU plane, along with a 25 degree bevel, create an included angle of 37 degrees. 

So, in effect, for one person the bottom line is that a BU plane has a wider range than a BD plane. 

But that is only a part of the story. Bear with my following convoluted explanation.

One of the advantages of planing wood with a hand plane rather than a machine is that you get to know the surface of the wood. When planing interlocked grain you feel when the plane is starting to struggle and resist cutting. You stop in mid shaving, adjust the stroke/depth of blade/direction of cut.

In my experience the difference in feedback varies in part with the centre of gravity. The further from the work surface, the lower the feedback. Conversely, the lower the centre of gravity, the greater the feedback. In part, feedback also depends on the "centre of effort". C of E is a yachting term to refer to the action of the wind on the sail - where it places it force ... low or high on the sail. Pressure at the top of the sail is different to pressure at the bottom of the sail. In a similar manner, force directed at the low end of the blade creates more stability and controlled power. For this reason, a plane with a low centre of gravity requires less effort to push than a plane with a high centre of gravity, for example, a traditional jointer versus a razee jointer ...












This is the reason I build razee woodies ... and yet I often return to the LV BU Jointer ...






Add to the equation a plane with a low centre of effort - a bevel up plane is an example of this - and you will understand their attractiveness to many. They are easy to push and easy to control.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> One could begin by talking of cutting angles.
> 
> If you work with interlocked grain, a high cutting angles helps greatly in reducing tear out. Achieving the high angles is easier using a BU plane - simply alter the secondary bevel on bevel face.


Exactly the same with a BD plane except the new bevel goes on the flat face side and you have the benefit of the chip breaker (whatever the benefit is :shock: )


> Unless it has a high enough bed/frog, a BD plane will require two bevels - one on each side of the blade.


Er- so what? No problemo as far as I can see.


> ....... Bear with my following convoluted explanation......


Too many convoluted explanations, so little time! And they are all so heavy the new BU planes! Makes more work, like wearing lead boots - good underwater perhaps? 
NB if heaviness and low centre of gravity was a virtue then it'd pay to put lead weights in a wooden plane. But nobody does that - because it's a daft idea. Everybody knows the light weight of woodies is one of the main attractions.

PS I've only got two heavy-weights now, a Stanley new SW 4 and a Clifton 4. The work equally well but the Clifton has much better adjustment. On the other hand the Stanley has much better mouth adjuster - in fact the best of all of them.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (11 Jun 2013)

That's an interesting input Derek, I never really understood the idea of a razee for anything other than creating more room under the blade! Of course, as Jacob mentioned, putting lead weights on the bottom of a plane would lower the centre of gravity, although not the centre of effort. The effect of this I don't know, other than that you'd lose the lovely wood on wood slippery goodness!

Personally I've used a low angle jointer identical to your picture, and I must admit that in terms of effort and finish, my 1902 No 7 was just as good... (But perhaps I'm biased!)
These days, I've switched to woodies, I find them more comfortable to use and find that they give a much better finish on the wood, which for me wipes out any idea of having a low angle plane...
Also, I've seen the idea of having multiple blades for a BU plane to give low, standard, york etc. but honestly, this scares me! I'm bad enough at keeping 1 blade sharp, let alone 3! :mrgreen: 

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

I've always thought the "Razee" plane was the school plane i.e. for small hands. Where did the odd name come from?

PS the answer! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razee


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jun 2013)

Hello,

Actually, it was a common recommendation to soak woodies in linseed oil to give them more mass, so more weight (to a point) has always been understood as an advantage.

The only advantage in a light plane, as far a I can see, is if it is carried about a lot. During use, the board being planed takes all the weight, and I've not heared any complaints there. Mass, however, is a function of momentum. Since we cannot practically make planes move very quickly, making them heavier increases momentum, which is a boon when planing cranky grain, knots etc. it is obviously a matter of preference, but the majority of woodworkers prefer a plane with some weight to it.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

woodbrains":1bqzjeb4 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Actually, it was a common recommendation to soak woodies in linseed oil to give them more mass, so more weight (to a point) has always been understood as an advantage.


:lol: :lol: yes those few milligrams would make all the difference! woodbrains - the linseed is for preservation, lubrication, appearance and also strengthens the surface against abrasion


> The only advantage in a light plane, as far a I can see, is if it is carried about a lot. ......


It also requires less force to move it to and fro. This means less work. Your physics is a bit confused.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jun 2013)

Jacob":27rkjum3 said:


> woodbrains":27rkjum3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



Actually, and you know this quite well, planes soaked in linseed oil get quite a bit heavier. Don't talk milligrams, the oil can replace a fair bit of the spaces in the cells where the unbound moisture content was driven out during seasoning, and wet wood is quite a bit heavier than dry, I think you'll agree. Incidentally, I did not say oiling a plane did not do those other things as well.

Momentum is the product if mass and velocity. There is only so fast you can move your arms backwards and forwards 
during planing, but you can move larger masses, within the realms of the tools we use. I can push a plane double the mass of a woodie without any noticeable effect, therefore doubling the momentum. I would find it impossible to push the woodie twice as fast, for the same outcome. A woodie might weigh 1 pound, a relatively lightly cast iron plane might weigh 3 pounds. I can triple the momentum and no one could say a 3 pound plane was uncommon or excessive. I understand the physics quite well thank you.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

woodbrains":2h1ma00q said:


> ....... I can push a plane double the mass of a woodie without any noticeable effect, therefore doubling the momentum. ......


Only be working twice as hard. You have to pull it back as well. If you could plane in one direction only you would be a bit nearer the truth. Mass would be very noticeable if you were hand planing for longish periods. It's fairly self evident I think, and shows how all this idle theorising can cause so much confusion!


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jun 2013)

Jacob":21uf53j7 said:


> woodbrains":21uf53j7 said:
> 
> 
> > ....... I can push a plane double the mass of a woodie without any noticeable effect, therefore doubling the momentum. ......
> ...



It has nothing to do with theorising, you twit, the biggest effort required in planing is overcoming the force required to lift the shaving. This is the main limiting factor of the speed we can push a plane. Mass is independent of this, so it is better to gain momentum by increasing mass than trying to push faster. Ironically, using mass to get more momentum will actually help overcome the force required to lift the shaving, so makes planing easier. Of course you have to work harder, but it is not outside the realms of human physique or the tools we have evolved with use. We are not pushing anvils! Besides, if there is not enough momentum available to lift the shaving, we have to reduce the thickness of shaving and take twice as many cuts and the work done becomes the same, except it will take twice as long.

Do I take it that you do not use iron planes or are an 8 stone weakling? Of course not, you can use any plane developed for the job as can I, you are just, as usual, being argumentative. But if you are going to plane ornery timber, I bet you will opt for something with some heft to do the job; out of experience, not theory.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

woodbrains":2m32ifci said:


> Jacob":2m32ifci said:
> 
> 
> > ........ But if you are going to plane ornery timber, I bet you will opt for something with some heft to do the job; out of experience, not theory.
> ...


Not so. Fastest material remover I have is a little light wooden scrubber . Next fastest is a similar but 
slightly wider scrubber. This is experience, not theory. I was using one only yesterday (though Doug did more of it).
The heavier the plane, the harder the work. But steel planes are better for finer finishes, which is why they are chosen - for finer work and precision/control/adjustability etc.


----------



## Dangermouse (11 Jun 2013)

Don't forget friction !


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

Dangermouse":195tqhx8 said:


> Don't forget friction !


Candle wax!!


----------



## Duncumb.fc (11 Jun 2013)

Jacob":268hvt9o said:


> Dangermouse":268hvt9o said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget friction !
> ...



Excellent... Let's all get waxy wood and then wonder why our finish doesn't stick properly.

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":2to4j495 said:


> Jacob":2to4j495 said:
> 
> 
> > Dangermouse":2to4j495 said:
> ...


If it really was an issue I suppose you could hold back on the candle wax for the last few passes of the plane, but I think it's a bit of a rumour and never actually a problem. And what about those oily old wooden planes? Only to be followed by linseed oil I suppose.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (11 Jun 2013)

Jacob":3j9y2zkd said:


> If it really was an issue I suppose you could hold back on the candle wax for the last few passes of the plane, but I think it's a bit of a rumour and never actually a problem. And what about those oily old wooden planes? Only to be followed by linseed oil I suppose.



1. I've had a problem myself with waxy wood from a plane (I've never done it since) and while you could argue that you could switch plane for the last pass, that sounds like a bit of a waste of time...
2. I've never had a problem with sweating from my linseed oiled planes once they have been left to settle and wiped clean. Plus, linseed is a hardening oil and therefore becomes thicker and less likely to sweat during use.

Amusingly, a carpenter I spoke to enquired why the machining quality on new Stanley planes is so poor. The Stanley representative who got back suggested that perhaps it could be seen as a design feature, seeing as it could be filled with wax. Poppycock! :mrgreen: 

Fraser


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jun 2013)

Jacob":266bca0j said:


> woodbrains":266bca0j said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":266bca0j said:
> ...



A scrub plane reduces the effort required to push it, by reducing the depth of the shaving with its radiused blade, which is also narrow. You have just verified what I said about the biggest effort is due to lifting the shaving, not the mass of the plane. And the scrub is designed to minimise this. It is clear from your past posts on the subject, that you do not know what a scrub is for, anyway. Or have you changed your mind about these also?

Mike.


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Jun 2013)

Hello Mike

A scrub plane is quite new to me (I don't own one yet as I have not had the need for on). From what I have been able to make out I would think a scrub plane is for very rapid stock removal. I think I read that they are used for reducing the width of a board or establishing a straight edge or am I wide of the mark?

Regards

Graham


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2013)

Weight, that's an interesting concept.

When you look at the history of the plane, the time when machines weren't available, you see that the wooden plane was king. And they made the most extraordinary things back then , so the lightness of their planes didn't seem to be a problem. When Stanley introduced their metal planes they made the castings thin as possible. Woodworkers didn't like the metal planes because they were heavy, but because they didn't wear out so quickly and they were easier to adjust. 

Heavy planes are tiring. On the return stroke you have to lift the plane at least a bit. That's tiring with a metal plane. When you really need a heavier plane you can lean a bit on it. The plane will still be light on the return. Also, not all planing was done at the bench, and a heavy plane on a ladder is no fun.

An advantage of wooden planes is, you can make them longer without making them too heavy. Try a 90 cm jointer for example in metal.

Probably the best planes in this world, the Japanese planes are very light. They even have lower bodies then western planes. That should tell you something.

You can work very well with light planes, because a sharp blade trumps heavyness everytime.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2013)

woodbrains":31n9hpav said:


> ......
> A scrub plane reduces the effort required to push it, by reducing the depth of the shaving with its radiused blade, which is also narrow. You have just verified what I said about the biggest effort is due to lifting the shaving, not the mass of the plane.


Unless of course it's a heavy plane, where the weight then becomes an issue


> And the scrub is designed to minimise this.


Hmm, sort of, it's more that a cambered blade will remove more material for the same effort, all other things being equal. Similarly with an adze or gouge.



G S Haydon":31n9hpav said:


> .
> A scrub plane is quite new to me


Me too, until recently. They were recently rediscovered by American manufacturers of novelty planes, but it seems that the light wooden version never went away, in Europe at least


> (I don't own one yet as I have not had the need for on). From what I have been able to make out I would think a scrub plane is for very rapid stock removal.


 I didn't need one either but yes they do come in handy for rapid stock removal - particularly handy for cleaning up bad surfaces such as old reclaimed timbers - hence the name "scrub" perhaps. Now I've got one I think I do need one!
They come somewhere between greenwood tools (axe, gouge, adze, drawknife) and bench tools and I imagine would be useful for timber framers wanting to trim meeting surfaces, amongst other uses.



Corneel":31n9hpav said:


> .......Also, not all planing was done at the bench, and a heavy plane on a ladder is no fun..........


Yes.


----------



## MIGNAL (12 Jun 2013)

Oil won't add much weight at all to a wooden Plane. It simply cannot penetrate very deep into the wood. We must be talking a few grams at maximum. 
The real advantage of the wooden Plane has already been highlighted: it's less tiring and it's actually quicker in use. On reasonably well behaved wood and when there is a lot of wood to plane it becomes a very distinct advantage. I switch between wooden and metal Planes frequently. I virtually always reach for a woodie first. If the wood happens to be a little difficult I'll switch to a metal bodied Plane where are I perceive the extra weight to be an advantage. 
Most people who are accustomed to using metal bodied Planes give up on woodies pretty quickly. I did. Strange that I saw videos of people using them and their wooden planes seemed to glide over the surface, planing wood without much effort. Mine just didn't seem to give the same response despite being very well set up. The answer lies in the technique or rather the weight distribution. If you are accustomed to using a metal Plane you can't transfer that method over to the woodie without some sort of adjustment in your technique and the way you distribute the weight. That factor is much more important with the smaller wooden smoothing type Planes. The longer and heavier jointers are a bit more easy to switch over to.


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2013)

Some people close up the mouth with a bit of putty and then fill up the cavity of the plane with raw linseed oil for a few days. The oil will drain through the canals up to both ends of the plane and quite a bit of oil fits inside the wood making the plane noticably heavier. Of course, like always with these things, some people promote this method while others despise it. In the end it doesn't really matter, the plane will work both ways. 

When my wooden smoother and I are "in the zone", I get something like a surfy feeling, like riding some very wide skis through bottomless powder snow. Effortless, and invincable. Sorry I can't describe it another way.


----------



## AndyT (12 Jun 2013)

I know it's a bit late in the discussion, and I don't expect to change anyone's opinions, but I'll just add a little bit of observed evidence on the weight of wooden planes. 

There has been some discussion on this in recent TATHS newsletters. I won't repeat it all (Join TATHS for the full story!) but the nub of it is this:

Looking at common C19th beech tryplanes, of similar dimensions, a wide range of weights was found - the lightest one (at 2650g) was *700* grams less than another plane of the same size. (The weights exclude the iron and wedge.)

Some more planes of similar type were weighed; adjusting for slightly different dimensions gave a range of densities from about 0.5 grams per cc up to about 0.8 grams.

The researchers' conclusion was that some of the variation must be down to the natural difference in density of beech from different parts of the tree but a significant amount *was* due to the practice of soaking a plane in linseed oil (not just wiping over its surface).

[Another obvious conclusion is that the wise woodworker will make sure he has a "wide selection" of different planes to use! ;-)]


----------



## MIGNAL (12 Jun 2013)

You could do a simple test. Try soaking a piece of Beech in an oil based dye. With side grain it won't penetrate much above 0.2 mm's! and that's soaking the stuff in it for weeks. I know because I've done it, trying to stain a standard 0.6 mm's veneer. Obviously end grain will wick it in much more deeper but I'd be surprised if it went all the way through a Plane body. Anyway, if it's weight they were after why not stick a bit of lead at either end of the Plane. Wouldn't take days of soaking, about 10 minutes work to drill a couple of stopped holes and plug them with lead.


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2013)

Yes it soaks right through to the end. The users probably hope(d) that it would help preservate the wood and stop any movement of the wood through the seasons. Both in vain I guess, but it does make the plane heavier like Andy reports.


----------



## Dangermouse (12 Jun 2013)

The only wooden plane is have is a toothing plane and it does a good job. But for other work I'd go for metal planes every time. For me they are easy to set, you don't waste a lot of time faffing about with a hammer setting the blade, if you go to deep its a pain getting the blade back etc etc. As to weight, I've just flattened a workbench top of solid beech with a no6 Record and no7Stanley, took a few breaks for a cup of tea, but REALLY I don't think an extra few ounces will kill me.


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2013)

Yes, I think weight is quite a mood point. There has been way too much credit given to heavy planes in the recent past, even being used as a selling point. Some planes are really too heavy. I am a rather skinny guy, not very strong, and I don't like to use my infill plane for longer time because it is just too damned heavy. A Stanley plane usually is no problem, but neither is a wooden plane. When doing lots and lots of planing a woodie is nice.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2013)

if a plane 75x75x600mm was 100% linseed oil it'd weigh 1.5kg approx according to my calculations.
Say a plane absorbed 10% of this it'd add 0.15 kg to the weight. Not a lot?


----------



## MIGNAL (12 Jun 2013)

Dangermouse":36uu7g1z said:


> The only wooden plane is have is a toothing plane and it does a good job. But for other work I'd go for metal planes every time. For me they are easy to set, you don't waste a lot of time faffing about with a hammer setting the blade, if you go to deep its a pain getting the blade back etc etc. As to weight, I've just flattened a workbench top of solid beech with a no6 Record and no7Stanley, took a few breaks for a cup of tea, but REALLY I don't think an extra few ounces will kill me.




Remember this Dangermouse:





Superb little Plane, after a bit of work. The potential was always there, with it's lignum sole. After a few mods it sits in the hand and is a joy to use. I don't have the problems you describe in setting wooden Planes. It's just a matter of practice and the aquisition of another skill. Don't forget that your experience of 'faffing about' just might not be the same experience of other users. Same with the weight issue. Flattening a workbench complete with tea breaks is fine. You have no time pressure, it can be a leisurely experience. Doing 3 or 4 hours of planing in a professional capacity and you might start to realise the benefits of a lighter Plane.


----------



## Dangermouse (12 Jun 2013)

You've done a great job to that French plane Mignal, hats off to you. I just put forward my personal likes concerning planes. But I realise others love wooden planes and that's no problem. I don't want to change anyone's mind, just saying I prefer metal planes. But must say if I had three or four hours planning to do in one go, wood or metal, I'd get out the planer / thicknesser.


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2013)

I think you made an error Jacob. 0.75dm x 0.75dm x 6dm = 3.375 liter. 1 liter of linseedoil is 0.94 gram, so you get around 3kg of weight if the plane would be 100% oil.


----------



## woodbrains (12 Jun 2013)

Hello,

Guessing weights and measures is daft as it proves nothing. The point is, more weight to a plane WILL give it more momentum. There is no point arguing the age honoured Newtonion physics. Whether you like heavy planes or light ones is your preferences, but preference does not alter physics. One of the reasons lots of people prefer metal panes, is due to increased momentum helping the plane through the wood. I make and own wooden planes and I love them, so I have no reason to promote metal planes unless there was a good reason. But experience tells me that for some jobs extra heft is what is called for. Removing lts of stock with a jack, smoothing ornery stuff with a heavy infill, all good.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2013)

Corneel":2gz05z8s said:


> I think you made an error Jacob. 0.75dm x 0.75dm x 6dm = 3.375 liter. 1 liter of linseedoil is 0.94 gram, so you get around 3kg of weight if the plane would be 100% oil.


Oh yes. I blame my calculator. Still not a lot though.


woodbrains":2gz05z8s said:


> Hello,


Hello


> .....The point is, more weight to a plane WILL give it more momentum.


No it won't won't. Your physics is not very good woodbrain :lol: :lol: 
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. Only you can give it more momentum - by moving it faster. Harder to do the heavier it is. You don't get owt fer nowt, as Newton often said. You also have to reverse it which also is harder to do the heavier it is and the more momentum you have given it. Then you have to resist the momentum to send it forwards again. It's a hard life , especially if you are struggling with a heavy plane.


> There is no point arguing the age honoured Newtonion physics.


Well stop doing it then!


----------



## G S Haydon (12 Jun 2013)

FWIW, a very prominent plane marker, to the best of my knowledge, does not fill the mouth and treat with linseed oil in the traditional way. The reason for that is to prevent rot (i think, or I might be talking rot). The planes are instead treated with a wipe coat of Danish Oil. This was really interesting as most old books suggest the oil preserves the wood. I have not read anything about the addition of mass. I'm far from an expert on wooden planes so please don't think I'm trying to be clever, just though it was an interesting point.


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2013)

I don't know if I completely subscribe to Jacob's physics, but he does have a point. The energy to slice the blade through the wood doesn't come from the weight of the plane. It is provided by the user. The only way to improve matters is to sharpen the blade. (and reduce friction between plane and wood). 

The momentum of a heavy plane moving at a certain velocity works a bit like a flywheel. It helps to overcome sudden changes in resitance of the wood. So for example when you start a planing stroke with the blade still hanging in free air, and you can give it plenty of speed before it hits the edge of the board, a heavy plane will help more on the first part of the planing stroke. The rest is still just a matter of pushing. So it might feel like the heavy weight helps, because the initial jerk of the blade hitting the wood is smoothed out. But it is still the same amount of energy neccessary to plow the blade through the fibers. And because the return stroke costs more energy with a heavy plane, the total balance is in favor of a lighter plane.

Mike how would you plane the endgrain of a long, wide and thick board of wallnut? You can't clamp the board vertically because it is too long. So you have to plane with the board horizontal in the vise. I choose my lightest plane, a Krenov model of only 600 gram. Sharpened the blade first. I was kind of surprised how easy it was, having always heard that endgrain needs heavy planes. 

Sharp beats weight any day of the week. And like you say, weight is only a matter of preference.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (12 Jun 2013)

Please also note that a knot, or any other imperfection that might slow the plane, will impart a given return force. This force will slow a plane with more momentum by a lesser amount than a plane with less momentum, true. However, the force required to accelerate the plane back to full speed will be equal to the force imparted by the imperfection in the first place.
Thus, weight and momentum, while making a plane seem smoother in a push, actually do not save any energy at all.

Fraser


----------



## Dangermouse (12 Jun 2013)

According to quantum mechanics, the plane can be in two places at once depending on how it is observed and if near a singularity can weight nothing and 5000 tons at the same time.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (12 Jun 2013)

Dangermouse":wrkbmnwr said:


> According to quantum mechanics, the plane can be in two places at once depending on how it is observed and if near a singularity can weight nothing and 5000 tons at the same time.



Ah of course! That explains everything! :mrgreen:


----------



## G S Haydon (12 Jun 2013)

Dangermouse":tqcd9yyu said:


> According to quantum mechanics, the plane can be in two places at once depending on how it is observed and if near a singularity can weight nothing and 5000 tons at the same time.



At last, some common sense =D>


----------



## woodbrains (13 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":16dmihk2 said:


> Please also note that a knot, or any other imperfection that might slow the plane, will impart a given return force. This force will slow a plane with more momentum by a lesser amount than a plane with less momentum, true. However, the force required to accelerate the plane back to full speed will be equal to the force imparted by the imperfection in the first place.
> Thus, weight and momentum, while making a plane seem smoother in a push, actually do not save any energy at all.
> 
> Fraser



Hello,

Like I said earlier, if your preference is for a wooden plane or a lighter plane then fine, I'm not trying to change people's opinions on that. But the original argument was that a heavy plane has no advantage in the respect to being able to sail through ornery stuff, which is not true Nd the point I was trying to explain. I'm afraid your logic above s wrong. Do not try to justify a preference with poor logic, just state your preference and stand by it. The reason these forums run away is that poor logic is used over and over to try to win a point. It is not necessar I love wooden planes and I know sharp irons are most desirable thing and work wonders. But don't use bad logic to prove a point, it just becomes exasperating trying to explain over and over what is often irrefutable.

For anyone still interested, the above situation is not right because the opposing force exerted by the knot, or whatever, is the same for whichever plane is used and the same amount of restoring force will be required irrespective of the planes mass as the heavier one has more momentum in the first place, which is what momentum is. But the plane will not have stalled so much through the cut ( as is correctly pointed out) . At some point a very light plane will stall completely to a stop whereas th more massive one will continue through

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (13 Jun 2013)

woodbrains":coh9n582 said:


> Duncumb.fc":coh9n582 said:
> 
> 
> > Please also note that a knot, or any other imperfection that might slow the plane, will impart a given return force. This force will slow a plane with more momentum by a lesser amount than a plane with less momentum, true. However, the force required to accelerate the plane back to full speed will be equal to the force imparted by the imperfection in the first place.
> ...


Hello....No it isn't. 
You need to do a bit of physics revision woodbrains.
There may well be advantages in heavier planes on some occasions but it's certainly not a general rule. 
Compare axes and hammers - they work by imposing all the momentum gained in the swing on to a brief contact with the target. You couldn't get the same effect by _just pushing_ at nail or an axe head even with the same amount of energy invested - it's the short sharp blow which does it.


----------



## woodbrains (13 Jun 2013)

Jacob":p6kcfnc8 said:


> woodbrains":p6kcfnc8 said:
> 
> 
> > Duncumb.fc":p6kcfnc8 said:
> ...



Afraid not Jacob, my physics may be rusty, but it s reasonable enough here. What you are talking about here is impulse, or rate of change of momentum, if you prefer. You can impose enough force by just pushing... You must have seen a push pin before. Admittedly, we cannot do this with 6 inch nails, (because we are too puny, but an elephant could, more massive you see) which is why we use a big hammer with some momentum. You will never knock a 6 inch nail in with a jewellers hammer. You cannot get enough hand speed to attain the same momentum as a 28 oz framers hammer. You just keep affirming my point, Jacob.

Mike


----------



## Jacob (13 Jun 2013)

woodbrains":1tb3yj2d said:


> Jacob":1tb3yj2d said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":1tb3yj2d said:
> ...


Hello.....
Yes sounds OK you are getting there. 
Now apply this to planing n.b. you would have to explain why some people can plane with the equivalent of a jewellers hammer, spectacularly so in the case of a light wooden scrub.


----------



## G S Haydon (13 Jun 2013)

A heavier plane would overcome resistance better thanks to it's momentum but it would be tiring to use. A heavy plane would best be kept for fine finishing. An infill plane is a prime example of this concept.

A lighter plane is better for general use, unless you like a workout. 

Personal preferences may change the above.

In addition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pdWAcK6Eh8


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2013)

As long as you push the plane through the wood at a constant speed and the wood is rather homogenous, the momentum does nothing for you. We do agree about that one, do we?


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Jun 2013)

I do all my planning by hand and have always found that heavy planes work much better and more effectively than light ones. One of the reasons I favour Clifton planes is that, size for size, they are heavier than most planes by other manufacturers. I'm not particularly big or strong but I've never found heavy planes tiresome to use compared with lighter ones. In fact, because they are more effective I find heavy planes less tiresome to use.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## G S Haydon (13 Jun 2013)

"and the wood is rather homogenous"

As long as :wink: And it's up to you, no law out there banning heavy or light planes. Never read a book that said light good, heavy bad or vice versa. As a general rule the heavy infills would be for the final high quality finish should it be required and the lighter wooden planes for general use. That said, do what makes you happy. Heavy or light I don't give a s~i?e


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2013)

No indeed, use whatever you like.

But there was some disagreement abouth physics and it got a bit unclear who disagrees about what exactly, so I thought, to take it in small steps. I am certainly not the brightest head in physics, it's been 25 years ago.

So we do agree about that one small thesis do we?


----------



## G S Haydon (13 Jun 2013)

Sadly corneel in the contest of not being bright you will see me with a gold medal  . All I can say is heavy with momentum for fine, fine finishing and lighter for general use. I can't take it any further than that ;-)


----------



## Duncumb.fc (13 Jun 2013)

woodbrains":mhgdprs1 said:


> Duncumb.fc":mhgdprs1 said:
> 
> 
> > Please also note that a knot, or any other imperfection that might slow the plane, will impart a given return force. This force will slow a plane with more momentum by a lesser amount than a plane with less momentum, true. However, the force required to accelerate the plane back to full speed will be equal to the force imparted by the imperfection in the first place.
> ...



Actually Jacob,
Mike has made a good point here.

My physics only work up until the point where the impulse on the plane is greater than the energy needed to push the plane. For small knots, this will not be the case, and therefore the above stands, but for larger knots Mike is definitely right.
I prefer woodies, because I prefer the lower coefficient of friction, but having said that, in instrument making I rarely have to plane down a large board, and even more rarely do I come across knots. Perhaps if I did my opinion would change

Fraser


----------



## Duncumb.fc (13 Jun 2013)

Corneel":1taik654 said:


> As long as you push the plane through the wood at a constant speed and the wood is rather homogenous, the momentum does nothing for you. We do agree about that one, do we?



Yes we do, or I do at least.
However, so far we have ignored the coefficient of friction, and the energy needed to overcome friction.

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (13 Jun 2013)

Yes but you use different planes differently. If it's heavy this will help in some circumstances but not others, and vice versa. But in general light weight means less work. As a rule a plane is not used like an axe, with a long swing gathering momentum towards a short cut.


----------



## woodbrains (13 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":20gih15z said:


> Corneel":20gih15z said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you push the plane through the wood at a constant speed and the wood is rather homogenous, the momentum does nothing for you. We do agree about that one, do we?
> ...



Custard is fairly homogenous, but I would prefer to push a snooker ball through it than a ping pong ball.

Excuse the perverse metaphor here, but I think it conveys the point.

Momentum will overcome friction as wall as cutting resistance.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (14 Jun 2013)

So, putting sandbags in the boot of the car helps to save on fuel? You have invented the perpetum mobile, congratulations. 

Which brings me to the second one. Moving a heavier weight from a to b (and back) takes more energy. I suppose everyone agrees about that. 

So, that leaves irregularities in the wood. And yes more weight helps but it comes at a cost: more energy. 

There are other ways to deal with irregularities. In the first place a sharp blade. "Sharp cures everything". 
You can skew the plane, you can plane across the grain in a heavy cut, you can choose your stock wisely, you can wax the bottom. You can even lean on the plane to alter the weight dynamically when you need it. 

It's all a matter of perception too. Someone who paid a lot for an extra heavy plane feels more difference them someone who got it for free. That's human nature, not physics.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (14 Jun 2013)

Corneel":1aewdnm8 said:


> So, putting sandbags in the boot of the car helps to save on fuel? You have invented the perpetum mobile, congratulations.
> 
> Which brings me to the second one. Moving a heavier weight from a to b (and back) takes more energy. I suppose everyone agrees about that.
> 
> ...



Corneel has nailed it!
Thanks!

Fraser


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Jun 2013)

How about this for a revolutionary idea - use the plane that suits you best for the job in hand, ignoring everything anyone else says. It really doesn't matter much.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jun 2013)

woodbrains":3eh6zjcd said:


> ....
> 
> Custard is fairly homogenous, but I would prefer to push a snooker ball through it than a ping pong ball.
> 
> Excuse the perverse metaphor here, but I think it conveys the point.


Nope. I see no point.


> Momentum will overcome friction as wall as cutting resistance.


Yes but to get the momentum you need to exert more force. And how would you submerge the ping-pong balls? :shock: 
Ask yourself - does it work with stewed prunes? They help to get things moving apparently.

So this is where you learned your physics; playing with your pudding? I would never have guessed!


----------



## clivethecarpenter (14 Jun 2013)

Jacob":1s7bo51v said:


> woodbrains":1s7bo51v said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...




:lol: giggle


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jun 2013)

Corneel":x38c8owq said:


> So, putting sandbags in the boot of the car helps to save on fuel? You have invented the perpetum mobile, congratulations.
> 
> Which brings me to the second one. Moving a heavier weight from a to b (and back) takes more energy. I suppose everyone agrees about that.
> 
> ...



Where did I ever say there is an energy saving? This is what annoys the living daylights out of me, someone always writes something I never said and then tells me I'm wrong. So people here don't understand momentum; well I tried.

It seems the folk here would prefer to believe that psychology makes their planes work rather than mechanics and they have the front to chastise me for playing with my food. Never mind.

Incidentally, custard is a non-Newtonian fluid. Ping pong balls will stay submerged.. 
Mike.


----------



## Corneel (14 Jun 2013)

The custard example is fundamentaly flawed, you'd have to acknowledge that.

I think where you are going wrong is comparing planing with a swinging action, like hammering. Planing is a pushing action, where the circumstances are different. When you try to push a nail into the wood it doesn't matter if the hammer is 50 grams or 5 kg.

And don't take it too personally, it's just a discussion on a forum, not a matter of life and death.


----------



## iNewbie (14 Jun 2013)

I always use a Bevel-up spoon with Bird's custard.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Jun 2013)

Fine, but doesn't the muck off your water stone get the custard dirty?


----------



## Jacob (14 Jun 2013)

This one could run and run!


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jun 2013)

Corneel":3dvw8tn9 said:


> The custard example is fundamentaly flawed, you'd have to acknowledge that.
> 
> I think where you are going wrong is comparing planing with a swinging action, like hammering. Planing is a pushing action, where the circumstances are different. When you try to push a nail into the wood it doesn't matter if the hammer is 50 grams or 5 kg.
> 
> And don't take it too personally, it's just a discussion on a forum, not a matter of life and death.



I know I'm going to regret this, and you must realise that the custard was said more out of facetiousness than anything, but why is the example flawed? If this doesn't illustrate why something with more momentum will move against an opposing force easier than something with less, then why?

I don't take these things personally, but it is is irksome to be argued against with things I have not said. The hammer thing or flywheels were nothing I said, but here I am having the the comments attributed to me. Now there is sand bags in cars! I have said on more than one occasion, that I own use and like wooden planes. I have said I do not want to change anyone's working methods. I was only trying to explain, a least in part, why many people find a heavy plane an advantage. The soles can be waxed just the same the blades can be equally sharp, they can be skewed through the cut just the same. They can be as cheap as chips and rough as bears behinds, so not instil any sense of awe and wonderment like a premium tool can (apparently?) But there is a perceivable difference that can only be explained by mass providing more momentum. And no amount of flawed mechanics as counter arguments will disprove the fact. You might not like heavy planes, but don't try to prove it by disproving Newton. Enjoy your wooded because of why ever it is you do. In fact tell us, it would make good reading here. I can tell Lyon why I like mine, but has nothing to do with poor physics.

Mike.


----------



## iNewbie (14 Jun 2013)

phil.p":muwcpwlo said:


> Fine, but doesn't the muck off your water stone get the custard dirty?


Just a trifle.


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Jun 2013)

What you said Woodbrains is that 'light Planes offer no advantage'. I suppose you implied that they don't cut the custard.
My experience tells me that they do offer advantages in certain situations. They are light and therefore less tiring.


----------



## Corneel (14 Jun 2013)

Dear Mike,

You still don't understand this fundamental physical thing, energy doesn't appear from nowhere. The momentum doesn't push the plane. You are pushing.

When you push something at a constant velocity against a constant resistance, you have to deliver energy constantly. If you stop pushing the plane it will stall to a complete stop. The heavier plane will move a little further then the lighter one because YOU have put more energy into pushing it until that point. The same goes for the ball through the custard. If the momentum would do any pushing you would have created a perpetuum mobile and the plane would take of from itself. That is fundamentally impossible.

Hope you now understand what I am trying to explain. When pushing the plane you store some energy into the momentum, so it will continue a liitle further after you stop pushing. But the momentum itself doesn't create energy to push the plane. The momentum doesn't push.

If you don't understand this I'm afraid i can't explain it more clearly.

Wishing you all the best, corneel.

PS, I don't remember exactly who said what, but the custard example and the hammer example came from you.


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jun 2013)

Jacob":2o689ssw said:


> woodbrains":2o689ssw said:
> 
> 
> > Duncumb.fc":2o689ssw said:
> ...



Like I said, it was Jacob who introduced hammers and axes. Someone ele fly wheels.



Corneel":2o689ssw said:


> Dear Mike,
> 
> You still don't understand this fundamental physical thing, energy doesn't appear from nowhere. The momentum doesn't push the plane. You are pushing.
> 
> ...



And kinetic energy also has a mass component. Like I said, it is feasible to push a plane of 2 times the mass but less so increase speed significantly because cutting resistance and physical limitations of the human body limit this.

The phenomenon that people have noted in massive planes could be down to magic, I suppose.


Mike.


----------



## Corneel (14 Jun 2013)

So you do agree with me? 

Kinetic energy is mass x velocity. When you accelerate the plane you store kinetic energy in the plane. The heavier the plane, the more energy you must deliver to reach the desired speed. When you have reached that speed, the kinetic energy remains constant, because the mass and the velocity remain constant. In other words, no energy goes in or out as long as the speed remains constant. You only have to continue delevering energy to overcome the friction in order to keep the speed constant.

Then half way the board you may decide to stop planing and let go of the plane. At that point the energy balance is disturbed. The friction remains the same, so the plane decelerates. Because it decelerates the kinetic energy is released.

In other words, as long as the speed is constant, the kinetic energy doesn't help you. Only when the plane decelerates (because of an irregularity in the wood) wil the stored kinetic energy help you to overcome that irregularity. And of course the kinetic energy is first delivered by you in accelerating the plane at the start of the planing stroke.

So, the weight of the plane doesn't help you to push it. 

The rest is personal preference, when and where you want to deliver energy.


----------



## woodbrains (15 Jun 2013)

Cornell,

Momentum is mass times velocity, KE is (mass times velocity squared ) divided by 2. And the KE is not released on decelleration either. Neither have I ever said that you do not put more energy into the system with higher mass, but twice you have accused (attributed) me of inventing momentum perpetua. Neither is accellerating a plane storing kinetic energy in it. It HAS kinetic energy because It is moving, the more massive plane having more kinetic energy it has for a given speed. We need energy transferred from the plane through the blade to make the cut. (kinetic energy from the plane to potential energy in the blade back to kinetic, heat and sound energy lifting the shaving.) And yes, on more than two or three occasions I have said it is personal preference, and I wasn't trying to change anyone's working methods. I am merely trying to explore why heavier planes are preferred by many. All things being equal, blade sharpness, low friction soles etc. both systems can be equal. So the only differentiator is weight. If people observe this helps them push through the work better, it must be, in part, down to increased momentum, there is nothing left to attribute it to. It will take more energy from the user to push the plane as I keep saying, but if I can use a heavy plane all day, then I can still only use a light one all day, so there is no real disadvantage. But, if the energy in a light system is not enough to move the plane through a cut then the only solution is to reduce the depth of cut and make more passes. It is horses for courses.

And as I have said, I still live my wooden planes, I'm not getting at anyone.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (15 Jun 2013)

If you aren't dazed and confused already what about these questions:
1 Why can't you play ping pong with snooker balls?
2 Vice versa?
3 Cricket with shuttlecock?
4 Would it help if you were in a vacuum? (nb not a hoover)
5 Why can't you just throw bullets at a target, they are only little after all, compared to say the effectiveness of throwing a cricket ball.
6 What would happen if you dropped each of these into very deep custard?


----------



## Corneel (15 Jun 2013)

Yes, the planes has kinetic energy because it is moving. And why is it moving? Because YOU accelerated the plane, YOU have put energy into it.

For the weight to help the planeuser overcome the resistance, it must release energy. And I allready explained that during the phase of the constant speed, the kinetic energy remains constant, so no release of energy. I'm afraid I have to "accuse" you of trying to invent momentum perpetua once again.

You are right about the correct formula for kinetic energy, i got them mixed up after a couple of beers. It doesn't change my proof though. As long as weight and velocity remain constant, the kinetic energy remains constant and no help is given to overcome the resistance in planing. BTW, at the end of the board when the blade leaves the wood and the resistance disapears, the kinetic energy works against you and you must put effort in it to stop the movement.

Because kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity squared, speed has more influence the weight. Not many people are planing at the top of their anatomical abilities, a bit of increase in speed is almost always possible. So if you need more kinetic energy to overcome a knot, you can speed up the lighter plane. Increasing the speed of the heavier plane is more tiring again.

The total energy balance of the act of planing is always in favor of the lighter planes. Nobody can plane nonstop, a full day long. When you get tired you take a break. When the heavier plane tires you more you must take a break sooner.

Another advantage not yet mentioned, you can use longer planes without expending more energy when they are lighter. For example my 18" fore plane is still lighter then my 14" Stanley #5. This makes it easier to make a flat surface.

So, in fact there are many arguments in favor of lighter planes, and not much in favor of heavier planes.


----------



## dj. (15 Jun 2013)

Phew, I`m worn out reading that lot, #-o

Personally I like a woodie if I`m working away from a bench etc where the weight of the plane is not being supported by the piece of timber I`m planing. 



Jacob":c6v6hnq3 said:


> 6 What would happen if you dropped each of these into very deep custard?



Well first off you`d need a bloody big bowl & second you wouldn`t be putting it on my apple pie when you`ve finished with the custard :lol:


Regards.

dj.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Jun 2013)

I have a perfectly good argument for heavier planes. I like heavier planes.


----------



## Corneel (15 Jun 2013)

I'm going to make it even more complex. We haven't yet thourougly discussed the influence of the bodyweight of the planer. Let us try to find some numbers about this.

When I put a scale on my bench I find it is not very difficult at all to press down with 20 kgs. This weight is also moving with the planing stroke but not at exactly the same speed, nor is it rigidly attached to the plane. But it does have an effect. When you encounter a knot, your moving body will try to continue on its path, and because you are pushing the plane with relatively rigid arms, some of that momentum will help the plane to move over the knot without slowing down. 

Say only a quarter of the 20kg mentioned above plays a role in the momentum of the plane. That's still 5 kg. The difference between a beech smoother and a Stanley #4 is only 800 grams, a fraction of the 5kg. So in real life the difference in weight between the planes is only a small part of the total picture.

Personally I enjoyed this discussion. I learned more about planing dynamics, just thinking about it! Alas, no planing for me this weekend, because I have all kinds of other jobs around the house and garden.


----------



## Tom K (15 Jun 2013)

phil.p":1gb46jgx said:


> I have a perfectly good argument for heavier planes. I like heavier planes.



Especially when planing through knots whatever the physics says. Or on any other occasion when they suit the job, mood or day.


----------



## MIGNAL (15 Jun 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jizJpFsVcOY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bnfn_OvO_g


    Just the first 60 seconds of each video will do!

OK it's a bit unfair but it does illustrate the advantage that a light wooden Jack/smoother can have. Quick and slick. I suppose you could liken it to a nippy little super mini car against a Tank. One is agile whilst nothing is going to get in the way of the Tank.
Each has it's merits.
BTW. Notice how fast the guy adjusts the wooden Plane. He barely looks at what he is doing!


----------



## Jacob (15 Jun 2013)

well yes - it's obvious. Even faster with a little lightweight scrub.
Metal planes are better or finer finishing though, as they are easier to adjust very precisely.
Why is that chap struggling away with a 7? So obviously the wrong plane for the job.


----------



## G S Haydon (15 Jun 2013)

_"Why is that chap struggling away with a 7? So obviously the wrong plane for the job."_

Vid No2. Because it work for him I guess. Video was not the best production, however I'm not sure if it was the wrong plane. By the book I would assume Jack to level off working across the grain, Try to flatten with the grain, Smoother to fine finish with the grain.
To be fair to the guy in the video he may of already used a jack or he may not off. I might be wrong on this but did Alan Peters use the No7 for loads of work that would normally be done by another plane?


----------



## Peter Sefton (15 Jun 2013)

The guy with the wooden plane was looking quick and slick but he was just hacking off soft tulip, he was using a cambered blade which tends to produce narrow shavings and he is planing circular sawn timber which means he starts off only taking off the high spots.

The second guy using the no 7 does seem a little OTT for the job but the timber is Alder - a bit harder to work. He is using a bevel up plane taking wide shavings the whole length of the board. He is working with more care as he is finishing the board, a different planing technique completely; also as he is using a bevel up plane, is he using a 37, 50 or 62 degrees effective cutting angle, as the difference in energy required between the three angles is significant?
So this is not really a fair comparison.

Alan Peter’s plane of choice was indeed his no 7 probably because it had the most weight and momentum when being used, that’s why when I only had a couple of planes, the no 7 was my plane of choice. My work buddy at the time always used his no 3 and we both produced the same furniture. I don’t ever remember having a heated debate over a tea break about which plane was better, we were too busy earning a living;-)

Planes do have their own specific strong points but you can within reason use most of them for most jobs.


----------



## MIGNAL (15 Jun 2013)

Yes, that's why I stated that it's a little unfair. The main principle still holds true though. The lighter wooden plane is quicker and easier to use on most of our European hardwoods, providing it's fairly well behaved stuff. I switch between the two types all the time. I have a pretty good idea of how both types work and their respective advantages.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (16 Jun 2013)

I have a dodgy wrist. A hefty plane acts as an effective damper, smoothing the impact of working a variable material. Since the tool is powered by tea and biscuits, I'm more than happy to scoff a few extra to offset the slightly greater energy requirement (which is trivial anyway, considering I've got 14stone of me to move as well as the tool)


----------



## Corneel (16 Jun 2013)

Yes exactly that is what weight does, smoothing out the irregularities. That feels like the plane is pushing itself. But you still have to eat the biscuits. 

I use both types. Usually it is just a matter of which one happens to have a sharp blade.


----------



## Corneel (16 Jun 2013)

Ok, I'm going to make some corrections to my own blasphemous posts from the last few days. Fueled by a bit of booze I probably went a little too far.

In itself there is nothing wrong with the theory, but practice showed that momentum can help you in planing hard wood with high resistance. The keyword here is short planestrokes. It is possible to build up enough momentum to get a quite a bit of distance in the wood before you run out of kinetic energy, further then I thought. So If you start a planing stroke at considerable speed, and the resistance in the wood is higher then you are able to just push through, the momentum helps until you run out of it. In the wallnut board I am working at, I guess I can make strokes about half a meter long using the momentum plus my own pushing. This is very usefull in rough planing when you want to remove a lot of wood.

Sorry for stepping on any toes.


----------



## woodbrains (16 Jun 2013)

Hello,

What _have_ you been drinking, and can you get it over here? I could do with some.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (17 Jun 2013)




----------



## Jacob (17 Jun 2013)

Corneel":2b8ok7hq said:


> Ok, I'm going to make some corrections to my own blasphemous posts from the last few days. Fueled by a bit of booze I probably went a little too far.
> 
> In itself there is nothing wrong with the theory, but practice showed that momentum can help you in planing hard wood with high resistance. The keyword here is short planestrokes. It is possible to build up enough momentum to get a quite a bit of distance in the wood before you run out of kinetic energy, further then I thought. So If you start a planing stroke at considerable speed, and the resistance in the wood is higher then you are able to just push through, the momentum helps until you run out of it. In the wallnut board I am working at, I guess I can make strokes about half a meter long using the momentum plus my own pushing. This is very usefull in rough planing when you want to remove a lot of wood.
> 
> Sorry for stepping on any toes.


Yebbut you don't get anything for nothing - to gain momentum you have to apply more force, so you can get a "chop" effect when you hit a hard bit but overall you will be doing more work. Most of the time you aren't chopping knots, which makes planing unlike using an axe, where chopping is the only option.


----------



## Corneel (17 Jun 2013)

Indeed no free lunch. 

I was watching myself when i started to process the last board for my dining table. It's very rough sawn has stains that need to be removed and then it needs to be flattened, so a lot of wood needs to removed. First I went at it with the scrub, traversing the 16cm wide board. That's really a chopping motion. Then I used the foreplane to clean up the scrub marks first diagonally then more or less in length of the board. I was taking a fairly thick shaving and found that it was much easier to run the plane at speed then it was to run it slowly and deliberately, I took strokes about half a meter to a meter long. The board is pretty homogenous wallnut with some big knots in one end.

What happens is that you build up speed before the blade enters the wood. Building up speed means kinetic energy is stored in the moving plane. Then you hit the wood and because the cut is deeper then I can easilly push, the plane decellerates a bit, so kinetic energy is released and helps you to propel the plane. Until you run out of kinetic energy of course and the plane bogs down. The trick is now of course to adjust your shaving thickness and speed so you can use the kinetic energy to help you through the entire stroke, which is limited by your arms length anyway. In long work like with a jointer plane the kinetic energy is less helpfull maybe.

I think this is all extremely funny. You can theorise until you see blue in your face, but real practice is always a little different.


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Jun 2013)

My practical experience on 'difficult' (knots, changing grain) timbers. With a light weight woodie it often means that you have to bear down more, exerting more downward pressure so that the Plane does not get deflected when it hits a knot. That isn't the case (or at least less so) with a heavier metal plane. 1 - 0 to the heavier metal Plane. On softwood and average density European Hardwood, with reasonably well behaved grain, it is quicker and less tiring to remove material with a woodie.
1 - 1. The final whistle has blown. The match is drawn.


----------



## mqbernardo (17 Jun 2013)

i blame the referee.


----------



## G S Haydon (16 Jul 2013)

http://paulsellers.com/2013/07/reworkin ... used-ones/


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jul 2013)

I've done the front and rear like that for 20+ yrs, but I'd not thought to do the sides.


----------

