# Ramped shooting boards - do they really work better?



## MusicMan (16 Dec 2015)

I've been thinking about shooting board design and was considering building a ramped version. They do have the advantage that the wear is spread over a region of blade so one is more likely to be using a sharp edge.

However, the other advantage often claimed is that they simulate the action of a skew blade. I think this argument is incorrect. A skew blade, (or a skew motion of a straight blade in normal planing), attacks the wood fibres with a slicing as well as a pushing direction. It is well known in engineering cutting theory that this gives a faster cut with less effort. When carving your turkey be sure to make a rapid back-and-forth motion as well as pressing down. But this is not what ramped boards do. They are still pushing head-on to any individual fibre and not slicing it. It is as if one skewed a straight edge plane and then pushed in the direction of the axis of the plane rather than along the length of the wood. Planing in a diagonal direction as in flattening as bowed board, is not a skew motion unless the plane is skewed away from the direction of planing.

To properly simulate a skew plane with a straight-edged plane, one would have to build a carriage to hold and tilt the plane at an angle to the horizontal, then push this carriage horizontally on a normal shooting board. 

Has anyone using a ramped board done any comparative tests, side-by-side against a normal board?

Maybe this sliding ramped carriage is worth building! Not too hard with a dedicated woodie, just screw it to a wedge.

Keith


----------



## marcros (16 Dec 2015)

have you had a look through Derek Cohens site?

http://inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/ ... Board.html 
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ ... pared.html

a few others on shooting boards and planes too


----------



## Jacob (16 Dec 2015)

Ramped shooting boards - do they really work better?
Of course not!
It's possible to imagine a situation in which there would be a very slight advantage i.e. for a specific width of board and gradient, with a perfectly straight plane edge. But in the ordinary way of things this is unlikely to be worth setting up.

A shooting board has an obvious logic about it but in fact it's quite easy to manage without one. You mark up the end of the board all round, then plane bevels from each end and side to make something like a hip roof shape, then plane this off.


----------



## custard (16 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":4m2n2lwz said:


> Maybe this sliding ramped carriage is worth building!



If you're into making jigs and fixtures rather than furniture (nothing wrong with that, it's your time, you spend it how you like) then it would be a fine way of occupying a weekend.

If you're a practical furniture maker then it's more trouble than its worth. Firstly most plane irons end up with some camber on them. On a flat shooting board you just set the iron so the apex of the camber aligns with the centre of the workpiece. But on a ramped board the camber means the cutting angle would be constantly changing during the cut, so the finished surface would effectively be in wind. Secondly all shooting boards need adjusting from time to time as the fence shifts or the base warps (don't forget MDF and plywood also moves), on a ramped board that becomes a bit more of a faff.


----------



## Tom K (16 Dec 2015)

Ramped shooting board works by simulating a skew cut your sawing of a turkey doesn't. Bugbear will be along soon to explain it can't be a skew cut because there is no skew angle to do the equation he doesn't understand wood doesn't do maths.


----------



## monkeybiter (16 Dec 2015)

I've never used a shooting board and I'm rubbish at planning but MusicMan's correct, a ramped plane slide or a ramped workholding bed would not result in a skewed cut, just a conventional straight push cut in a diagonal direction with respect to the work. I do understand maths.


----------



## Tom K (16 Dec 2015)

monkeybiter":2kschotb said:


> I've never used a shooting board and I'm rubbish at planning but MusicMan's correct, a ramped plane slide or a ramped workholding bed would not result in a skewed cut, just a conventional straight push cut in a diagonal direction with respect to the work. I do understand maths.



(homer) Lack of comprehension and spelling not great.


----------



## MusicMan (16 Dec 2015)

Marcros - yes I had read Derek Cohen's and many other shooting board sites, but thank you for reminding me that he did do comparative tests. Derek is wrong about the ramped board imparting a slicing action; it does not. However he makes the point that a ramp allows the blade to enter progressively from the corner of the wood rather than the all-at-once shock on the edge, and this is a good point. 

Custard, you are correct for a cambered plane, but the ones I use for shooting are ground square. And thank you for allowing me to spend my time as I like!

+1 for monkeysbiter, -1 for Tom K.

Keith


----------



## Tom K (16 Dec 2015)

LOL Yeah I must apologize I've never understood the difference. Present the wood to the blade or the blade to the wood at an angle to the grain seems to produce a shearing cut to me :? Of course you can save yourself the effort there's always sandpaper.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":1jhp96xm said:


> Marcros - yes I had read Derek Cohen's and many other shooting board sites, but thank you for reminding me that he did do comparative tests. Derek is wrong about the ramped board imparting a slicing action; it does not. However he makes the point that a ramp allows the blade to enter progressively from the corner of the wood rather than the all-at-once shock on the edge, and this is a good point.
> 
> Custard, you are correct for a cambered plane, but the ones I use for shooting are ground square. And thank you for allowing me to spend my time as I like!
> 
> ...



Hi Keith

I am not sure where you read that I say that a ramped board adds skew - I have not said this, quite the opposite. 

The advantage of a ramped board is the reduced impact as the blade enters the wood. This is worth the price of building such a plane. The plane must have a square, not skewed, blade. The ramp will reduce the skew. Use a skewed blade on a flat board.

Regads from Perth

Derek


----------



## MusicMan (17 Dec 2015)

Thanks for the correction, Derek. In the article of yours that I read you wrote: "While there is a much debate whether the ramped board can be said to impart a true slicing cut, there was no mistaking that any plane on the ramped board cut with less effort and less apparent impact than a flat board." But I may well have missed other things that you wrote about this. I agree with you except about the ramp reducing the skew. The skew is the angle of the blade relative to the direction of motion of the plane, and thus depends only on the plane and the direction in which it is moved. It isn't affected by the ramp. What is affected is the angle of the blade relative to the entry edge of the work. What I have learned from you is that the effect of the ramp is to change the attack on the entry edge from full-frontal shock to progressive entry, and of course that will be more effective with a straight blade (or one skewed in the opposite direction to the ramp). Your tests show this very well and your conclusion is very useful.

Keith


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Dec 2015)

Keith, on reflection, what you state about the skew not affected by the ramp makes sense. It is the same as I wrote about the ramp not creating a skew. Thanks. In which case, any shooting plane may be used on a ramped board.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## mouppe (17 Dec 2015)

I didn't find a ramped shooting board to offer any improvement over a regular one, but it did reduce the maximum thickness of wood you can plane so I stuck with a regular one. I use a blade with no camber (re Custard's post).


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Dec 2015)

How thick do you want to plane? A shooting board is ideal for thin boards. Thick boards are planed held in a vise.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## dzj (17 Dec 2015)

With a ramped SB a greater portion of blade width is used, so it stays sharp a bit longer than on a straight board.


----------



## condeesteso (17 Dec 2015)

Not worth it I reckon. The geometry dictates that they won't slice really - as the OP says. You get a few degrees which is nothing worth bothering with. Maybe OK on thin wide boards but as a general all-round board for say cabinet work, no gains I don't think. Regarding using the width of iron/edge, I do have a few offcuts of mdf lying by the bench, a 6mm, 9mm, 12mm. Place any combo of those under the workpiece and this helps use the iron across its width. For true slicing I do think you need a skewed iron.


----------



## Beau (17 Dec 2015)

custard":1ydtbw5e said:


> MusicMan":1ydtbw5e said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Spot on Custard =D>


----------



## ED65 (17 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":28l5ttg1 said:


> They do have the advantage that the wear is spread over a region of blade so one is more likely to be using a sharp edge.


I think this is their chief advantage, although an inconsequential one for anyone who believes in the mantra of _little and often _when it comes to honing.



MusicMan":28l5ttg1 said:


> However, the other advantage often claimed is that they simulate the action of a skew blade. I think this argument is incorrect.


Any angle other than 90° to the board's axis the blade can be considered skewed. It's possibly not enough to be significant but even 5° _is _still a skew.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Dec 2015)

I wouldn't use an iron with any camber on a shooting board. It would seem to me to negate any benefit of the board in the first place. I assume there must be a point or purpose to ramped boards or no one would make them. They've been around for a long time.


----------



## bugbear (17 Dec 2015)

Tom K":pvjhrvs9 said:


> Ramped shooting board works by simulating a skew cut your sawing of a turkey doesn't. Bugbear will be along soon to explain it can't be a skew cut because there is no skew angle to do the equation he doesn't understand wood doesn't do maths.


Neither does a falling cannon ball, but the law of gravity still applies.

_“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” _
-- *Neil deGrasse Tyson* 

 

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2015)

phil.p":1wexstn8 said:


> I wouldn't use an iron with any camber on a shooting board. It would seem to me to negate any benefit of the board in the first place.


Camber no prob - you tilt the blade to suit the cut.


> I assume there must be a point or purpose to ramped boards or no one would make them.


 It doesn't follow.


> They've been around for a long time.


So has homeopathy


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Dec 2015)

Certainly the camber isn't a problem - but it's even less so if it's non existent. I did say "I assume" not just "there must be".


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Dec 2015)

I wonder how many of you guys have actually used any of these shooting boards, and especially used them side-by-side with a variety of planes? Or is this just armchair speculation?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## MusicMan (17 Dec 2015)

Derek, I am glad (and relieved!) that you agree. No need to throw away your LN skews . And you are the only person I have seen who has actually done the comparison, which is what I was looking for, since I have not done them myself. 

For those who aren't getting the various geometries and who still think that a ramped board gives a skew cut, this diagram may help:







As for those who think I should spend my time making furniture rather than jigs, that's my choice. I think I am better at making jigs and tools, as it draws on my professional training and experience. And hopefully may be of use to others here.


----------



## Steve Maskery (17 Dec 2015)

That's a good image MM.

I've not made a ramped shooting board, so I don't know if they are better or not. If they are, it's nothing to do with producing a skew cut, they don't, the workpiece is still "hit" square on, the blade faces the same direction as the plane is moving, it's just that the workpiece tilted downhill, so the cut begins at a corner.

Tilting the workpiece, which is what a ramped board does, is not the same as skewing the blade. And it is easy to prove.

Say you start by skewing the plane by 5 degrees. The plane is still moving forwards and very slightly sideways. Skew a bit more and it's going even more sideways. Skew to 90 degrees and the edge is acting like a knife rather than a plane, and go beyond 90 degrees and the blade is actually moving backwards and not cutting at all.

Now turn the workpiece by 5 deg, then 10 then 45 then 90, then 120... It makes no difference, all that changes is the point at which the plane makes first contact with the workpiece. Imagine that the workpiece was a dowel. it would make no difference whatsoever, except the direction over which it passes the endgrain.

There may well be other advantages to using a ramped board, but to make a skew cut isn't one of them. It doesn't.


----------



## SammyQ (17 Dec 2015)

A normal angled and skewed planes on a conventional flat board cut predominantly on their lower (RH?) edges of their blades. A ramped board, depending obviously on thickness of wood worked and angle of ramp used, spreads the wood contact/cutting action more equably across the blade; arguably, the blade could stay sharp for longer? Just thinkin'....

I use a hefty 5½ or a ski-sized Stanley Bedrock, so the gravitas (mass) - once it's going - makes life easier. Oi fink his Worshipfulness, the Charlesworth, uses a 5½ too an' that's where I got this trick. Big hefty fella, big hefty plane. Simples.




Sam


----------



## ED65 (17 Dec 2015)

EDIT: I think it's better that I delete the original post as my diagram is only inclined to be misleading. 

Suffice to say, MusicMan's diagrams describe the situation correctly, mine did not.

If someone did want a shooting board that gives a skewed cut that is easy enough to arrange, you just build a sled that tilts the plane 20° or so and you're in business.


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2015)

SammyQ":2jm3w8sc said:


> .....
> I use a hefty 5½ or a ski-sized Stanley Bedrock, so the gravitas (mass) - once it's going - makes life easier....


Couldn't possibly. More weight means more force to get it going and more force to stop it, let alone all the sundry lifting and other manouevres. 
It's an odd delusion - anybody doing a lot of planing knows that lighter is easier.


----------



## Steve Maskery (17 Dec 2015)

That diagram is incorrect. The top one is skewed the lower one is not. I refer to my previous explanation.


----------



## ED65 (17 Dec 2015)

Jacob":3iphvj4z said:


> Couldn't possibly. More weight means more force to get it going and more force to stop it, let alone all the sundry lifting and other manouevres.
> It's an odd delusion - anybody doing a lot of planing knows that lighter is easier.


Why do you think the plane of choice for shooting was a jack or larger, and not a coffin smoother Jacob? 

Heavier planes "power through the cut" better than lighter planes, with respect every heavy plane should know this already.


----------



## ED65 (17 Dec 2015)

Steve Maskery":1f5funsf said:


> That diagram is incorrect. The top one is skewed the lower one is not. I refer to my previous explanation.


Thanks, I looked at it again and realised my error so I've deleted it so as not to confuse anyone.


----------



## MusicMan (17 Dec 2015)

ED65, regarding your comment about a sled to hold the plane at say 20 degrees and carry it in a horizontal direction on an ordinary shooting board, indeed that gives a skew cut and was what I was suggesting in my original post. It might be worth doing - has anyone tried it?

Jacob, no need to say that you don't need it, we know that you can and prefer to do it with a freshly-knapped flint axe!



Keith


----------



## bugbear (17 Dec 2015)

ED65":x2ybfild said:


> MusicMan":x2ybfild said:
> 
> 
> > They do have the advantage that the wear is spread over a region of blade so one is more likely to be using a sharp edge.
> ...



It seems a little sad, if the (e.g.) centre section of an otherwise sharp blade has been blunted on a shooting board, to re-sharpen the full width of the blade, most of which is still good, sharp and useable. It's a waste of time and steel, regardless of the sharpening process used.

BugBear


----------



## Tom K (17 Dec 2015)

bugbear":gyx0viip said:


> Tom K":gyx0viip said:
> 
> 
> > Ramped shooting board works by simulating a skew cut your sawing of a turkey doesn't. Bugbear will be along soon to explain it can't be a skew cut because there is no skew angle to do the equation he doesn't understand wood doesn't do maths.
> ...



It's not the law BugBear its just a theoretical idea of the way something works subject to constant revision. When scientists happen upon something else that shows (Mostly) they were almost but not quite right and occasionally wrong. The science quote borders on delusional listening to scientific opinion is like clothes shopping with a bunch of housewives.


----------



## SammyQ (17 Dec 2015)

"Couldn't possibly. More weight means more force to get it going and more force to stop it, let alone all the sundry lifting and other manouevres. 
It's an odd delusion - anybody doing a lot of planing knows that lighter is easier."

Jacob, you are a professional, I am a weekend warrior, so our experiences vary. For the relatively small amount of end-grain planing I do for drawers and suchlike, moving the avoirdupois of my two heavy planes is not a chore. For someone earning their bread by daily use, then "Yes" I can see that a lighter plane would be less tiring day-in-day-out, though I wonder are you generalising here to include, say, No4's on a flat surface too? I was restricting my observations to one aspect of planing, not 'helicopter vision' of it all. Moreover, I try to machine to within very few plane strokes of finished dimension, so I don't have much timber to remove by hand to finish. Ergo, not much effort.

As to generating force, I weigh somewhere north of 220 pounds and am an ex-second row forward, I cycle and climb mountains for recreation...believe me please, overcoming inertia and providing braking restraint for a moveable object is not a problem. 

What I have also found with my cast iron larger power tools (and to a lesser, but similar, extent here) is that larger mass tools are more predictable and run/can be used with less wobble or deflection. Obviously, there are limits, but my weightier hand tools 'sit' better in use and I have more faith in them to cut the lines I intended than I would have in their lighter compatriots.

Sam


----------



## ED65 (18 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":3ibqbab9 said:


> ED65, regarding your comment about a sled to hold the plane at say 20 degrees and carry it in a horizontal direction on an ordinary shooting board, indeed that gives a skew cut and was what I was suggesting in my original post. It might be worth doing - has anyone tried it?


I've not seen one that I recall. I'd say there's a good chance it hasn't been done frequently, if at all (a quick Google around doesn't show anything). It's interesting to speculate about why that is, that people would prefer to buy a skewed-iron plane, or make one of their own, rather than build a comparatively simple appliance that would allow them to use a plane they already owned and would do the same job! Nowt to queer as folk I guess.

BTW wanted to say thanks for starting this thread, if it hadn't been for the discussion here I would still have been labouring under the misapprehension that there was a skew involved.


----------



## ED65 (18 Dec 2015)

bugbear":eypujshl said:


> It seems a little sad, if the (e.g.) centre section of an otherwise sharp blade has been blunted on a shooting board, to re-sharpen the full width of the blade, most of which is still good, sharp and useable. It's a waste of time and steel, regardless of the sharpening process used.


Very related to the recent discussion on how long plane irons last. I do sort of agree in my heart, but in my head I know that the amount of steel wasted is so small only a right Scrooge should be worried about it


----------



## MusicMan (18 Dec 2015)

ED65, thanks for the thanks. I have to admit that I thought a skew cut was involved with a ramped board, until I really started thinking about it. Thanks to all for bringing their thoughts and experience.


----------



## Tom K (18 Dec 2015)

ED65":36jno069 said:


> MusicMan":36jno069 said:
> 
> 
> > ED65, regarding your comment about a sled to hold the plane at say 20 degrees and carry it in a horizontal direction on an ordinary shooting board, indeed that gives a skew cut and was what I was suggesting in my original post. It might be worth doing - has anyone tried it?
> ...




Ah that's where the confusion arises it was never a skew cut it* simulates *a skew cut. If you do a drawing of a plane cutting a board skew and then one of the board ramped using the same angles then overlay them they match (you do of course need to rotate them) so the blade intersects the grain at the same angle.
The idea of the against side (everyone but me) is that keeping the direction of energy aligned to the grain creates the skew cut, my thought is that it is only required to maintain the angle and the ramp on a ramped board does that for you.


----------



## Jacob (18 Dec 2015)

bugbear":1l8o9mqm said:


> ED65":1l8o9mqm said:
> 
> 
> > MusicMan":1l8o9mqm said:
> ...


If it really was an issue it'd be simpler to pack up the workpiece - or have a lower slide for the plane, with packing pieces. But it isn't - it's just more fantasy woodwork!
if a ramped shooting board had any meaningful degree of incline then you'd get spelching out on the bottom edge, in addition to ditto at the end.
I made a shooting board years ago but after about 15 years I realised I'd never used it, so recycled it instead.
There's a lot of this in woodwork - where "good ideas" get kicked around forever, even though they aren't that good in reality


----------



## MusicMan (18 Dec 2015)

Tom, they don't match. You have to include the direction of the plane relative to the angle of the blade, and then they do not match.

Keith


----------



## Tom K (18 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":1gelfo7t said:


> Tom, they don't match. You have to include the direction of the plane relative to the angle of the blade, and then they do not match.
> 
> Keith



The blade intersects the grain at the same angle its the same cut. the direction of push when doing a true skew cut
enable the blade to maintain position it doesn't create the cutting action it enable it as does the ramp angle.
The ramped board will be very limited in the material it can process thats why the aren't more popular.


----------



## ED65 (18 Dec 2015)

You were right first time Tom, there was never a skew cut. 



Tom K":2jd1euy5 said:


> If you do a drawing of a plane cutting a board skew and then one of the board ramped using the same angles then overlay them they match (you do of course need to rotate them) so the blade intersects the grain at the same angle.


They actually don't match once you factor in that the angle relative to the board changes. That's where I went wrong with the diagram that I posted and then deleted, I neglected to rotate the arrow showing the direction of travel. A ramped shooting board gives you a diagonal cut only, just as in the rightmost image in MusicMan's post on the previous page. 

Look at it again with your head tilted to the left, if that still doesn't convince you the posts from Wilbur Pan in this thread on the WoodTalk forum might.

The only way to get a skew action going is to rotate the cutting edge _relative to its direction of travel_, not relative to the angle of the board.


----------



## MusicMan (18 Dec 2015)

Tom, I don't understand your 'explanation' at all, sorry. But the essence of a skew or slicing cut is that the blade has a component of velocity along its edge as well as perpendicular to its edge, hence it slices the grain. This happens with a skew iron pushed straight along the board, or with a straight iron held at a skew angle and pushed along the board. It does not happen with a straight iron pushed at a diagonal angle but in the direction the plane is facing, which is what happens on a ramped shooting board. That is just a straight cut at a diagonal direction.

It is nothing to do with the intersection of the blade with the grain, but the slicing component of the blade's motion.

I can't explain it any better than that. ED65's explanation may also help.

Keith


----------



## condeesteso (18 Dec 2015)

Just a thought - for any slicing at all the cutting edge must be at an angle other than 90 degrees to its direction of travel.


----------



## Tom K (18 Dec 2015)

Unfortunately I don't understand what you dont get ? Cutting edge intersects grain at less than 90 degrees nothing else happens in either example. A little like Woody Allen cloning the nose.


----------



## condeesteso (18 Dec 2015)

Tom K":11qpb6f5 said:


> Unfortunately I don't understand what you dont get ? Cutting edge intersects grain at less than 90 degrees nothing else happens in either example. A little like Woody Allen cloning the nose.



Sorry to hover over this: I think I do understand so what am I missing. I'm saying forget the stock, orientation (flat, ramped etc irellevant) - there is only skew when direction is NOT at 90 degrees to the edge.
A further check - when I plane a top at an angle, that is not a skew cut - rotating the plane off it's long axis is the only source of skew.

????


----------



## Tom K (18 Dec 2015)

condeesteso":19af9ai1 said:


> Tom K":19af9ai1 said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately I don't understand what you dont get ? Cutting edge intersects grain at less than 90 degrees nothing else happens in either example. A little like Woody Allen cloning the nose.
> ...



Hi C, first lets clarify the statement for me it all starts with " a ramped shooting board works by simulating a skew cut" the important word is simulate it can never be a true skew because the planing direction is wrong. Will come back to this post after work to carry on with my thoughts


----------



## bugbear (19 Dec 2015)

If we're to continue analysing wether a ramped board does, or doesn't provide a skew cut,
perhaps the participants would all care to _*define*_ a skew cut.

Otherwise I don't see how a conclusion can ever be reached, regardless of thread length.

BugBear


----------



## Steve Maskery (19 Dec 2015)

Good idea.

A skew cut is when the blade is presented to the work at a different angle to that at which it is being pushed.

S


----------



## bugbear (19 Dec 2015)

Steve Maskery":19iqxczb said:


> Good idea.
> 
> A skew cut is when the blade is presented to the work at a different angle to that at which it is being pushed.
> 
> S



"blade" or "edge of blade" ?  

BugBear


----------



## Tom K (19 Dec 2015)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skew


----------



## MusicMan (19 Dec 2015)

Edge. I put it equivalently a few posts back: a skew cut occurs when the blade edge has a component of velocity parallel to itself as well as perpendicular. It is this parallel motion (slicing) that changes the nature of the cut.

The topic has been thoroughly investigated by Prof Atkins of Reading University, who found that the effort required to cut a fibrous material decreases the higher the ratio of parallel to perpendicular motion. So when you slice a turkey, it's best to move the knife quite rapidly back and forth, not just push down. A similar.effect occurs in wood (especially cross-grain cutting) which is why we bother about skew cutting.

Keith


----------



## ED65 (19 Dec 2015)

bugbear":h19rfio4 said:


> If we're to continue analysing wether a ramped board does, or doesn't provide a skew cut,
> perhaps the participants would all care to _*define*_ a skew cut.


Already done a few times, My contribution from the previous page:


ED65":h19rfio4 said:


> rotate the cutting edge _relative to its direction of travel_, not relative to the angle of the board.





Tom K":h19rfio4 said:


> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skew


Tom, that's a general definition of the word. For this we need a woodwork-specific definition. 

I'm like a reformed smoker now, wanting to spread the good word  Just having the plane at an angle does not equal skewed planing because it doesn't take into account the direction the plane is then pushed.

Can I just ask, you have used skew planing on occasion yes? Just close your eyes and think about the motion. You angle the plane to one side then push it straight along the board, not along the axis of the plane itself. _So the side of the plane faces the direction of travel_. Only this is skewed planing. 

Any time the plane is pushed straight along its length there is no skew involved and that is why a ramped shooting board doesn't have any skew action. It is merely a slightly diagonal cut.


----------



## Tom K (19 Dec 2015)

No you are confusing skew cut with skew planing. The first is an outcome the second is a means to that end.


----------



## condeesteso (19 Dec 2015)

bugbear":1sa7aucj said:


> If we're to continue analysing wether a ramped board does, or doesn't provide a skew cut,
> perhaps the participants would all care to _*define*_ a skew cut.
> 
> Otherwise I don't see how a conclusion can ever be reached, regardless of thread length.
> ...



My final: a skew cut occurs ONLY if the angle between cutting edge and direction of travel is NOT 90 degrees.


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2015)

My final - the tiny slope of the so-called "ramp" would not make the slightest difference to the cut. If it was steep enough to make a difference it'd most likely spelch out on the bottom edge and you wouldn't want to use it anyway. 
The whole idea is slightly bonkers, but that's normal for arm-chair woodwork theorists!
Happy christmas all!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 Dec 2015)

A proper skew cut has a _shearing_ action.

A a plane with a straight blade on a ramped board does _not_ cut with a shearing action.

A straight blade on a plane on a ramped board enters the work piece at the angle of the ramp (only a plane with a skew blade does cut with a shearing action). The means that the straight blade enters the wood _progressively_. This is the major benefit of a ramped board (it is significant). A secondary benefit is spreading the war on the blade (valuable, but less important). 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## MusicMan (19 Dec 2015)

Jacob, by your own admission you haven't used a shooting board for 15+ years, didn't like it then and have never tried a ramped board. So who is the armchair theorist? ;-)

I agree that a 5 degree skew would only have a small shear component, about 8%, and be unlikely to make much difference anyway, though I have not tried it. And the ramp does not skew cut anyway. But a 5 degree progressive entry could, and Derek has actually got out of his armchair and tried it and reports that it does make a significant difference.


----------



## monkeybiter (19 Dec 2015)

MusicMan.........ever wish you hadn't started? (hammer) :wink:


----------



## MusicMan (19 Dec 2015)

Mike, beginning to wonder that! But a few (very few) posts have brought new stuff to light and maybe one or two have learnt something! At least it has been active!


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":29n1hzkc said:


> Jacob, by your own admission you haven't used a shooting board for 15+ years, didn't like it then and have never tried a ramped board. So who is the armchair theorist? ;-)......


I'm waiting for an actual user of a ramped board to describe the advantages experienced after a good few hours of actual use. Nobody has so far!


----------



## condeesteso (19 Dec 2015)

Jacob":14bpds9e said:


> MusicMan":14bpds9e said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob, by your own admission you haven't used a shooting board for 15+ years, didn't like it then and have never tried a ramped board. So who is the armchair theorist? ;-)......
> ...



Indeed. Spreads edge-wear a bit and even that depends on sections planed etc. Apart from that a bit of woodie romance.


----------



## MusicMan (19 Dec 2015)

Jacob, Derek Cohen has done just that. The link to his site was given in the second post of this thread, by Marcros.

No doubt he could add to this with subsequent experience, but he has indeed posted in this thread confirming this experience.

Keith


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":1h8k9rby said:


> Jacob, Derek Cohen has done just that. The link to his site was given in the second post of this thread, by Marcros.
> 
> No doubt he could add to this with subsequent experience, but he has indeed posted in this thread confirming this experience.
> 
> Keith


had a look. Some strange out of this world gadgetry there! Surely he has the ramp going the wrong way - the plane is going to tend to lift the workpiece? It's not clear what experience he is confirming at all, except he manages to get the job done I presume!


----------



## MusicMan (19 Dec 2015)

I agree on the direction of the ramp. It would seem better to me to have the ramp on the runway, sloping down. Derek?

The point he emphasises is that the ramp (or a skew plane) introduces the blade edge to the wood progressively, rather than the sudden shock of a perpendicular edge hitting a square board. This does indeed happen and can mess up the leading edge of the wood. If a 5 degree ramp is enough to eliminate that shock, it is useful.


----------



## Tom K (19 Dec 2015)

Condeesto is at one of his fine benches skew planing a long board at 22.5 degrees the board is parallel to the front of the bench and he stands in front of the bench pushing the plane along the board's grain parallel to the front of the bench. He is skew planing and this produces a skew cut.

Condeesto is getting long in the tooth his hips are giving him gyp he needs to finish this part tonight he has deadlines.

Leaving the plane on the board mid pass he moves to the end of his bench, he turns the board with the plane still in position so the plane body is parallel to the front of the bench. He clamps a guide to his bench to maintain the boards angle so his plane remains aligned with the front of the bench. With an iron grip he holds the plane in position while pulling the board along the guide, he is no longer using a conventional method of skew planing yet the cutting edge intersects
the grain in the same correlation as before.

Is it skew planing does it produce a skew cut does it produce a simulated skew? If not please explain :?


----------



## condeesteso (20 Dec 2015)

Good grief Tom! Is that complicated enough? I repeat:
My final: a skew cut occurs ONLY if the angle between cutting edge and direction of travel is NOT 90 degrees.

That is it, that is all. Simulated skew doesn't exist.

edit add-on: Derek is right (about 2 pages ago). Ramp board, NO skew, spreads edge wear; eases start of cut - which can help quite a bit on thicker boards. Derek effectively ended the discussion.
Peace and goodwill to all, including those who don't shoot boards at all


----------



## MusicMan (20 Dec 2015)

Agreed, Douglas. Saying the same thing five different ways should suffice!

Best to all

Keith


----------



## bugbear (20 Dec 2015)

Tom K":1d25h8ir said:


> Condeesto is at one of his fine benches skew planing a long board at 22.5 degrees the board is parallel to the front of the bench and he stands in front of the bench pushing the plane along the board's grain parallel to the front of the bench. He is skew planing and this produces a skew cut.



You're almost implicitly defining your terms here, but not quite.

Can you (pretty please) be explicit about which items your angle of 22.5 degrees is measured between?

I could guess, but them we'd be using my assumptions/prejudices, not yours.

Oh, and could you define what you mean by "_simulated_ skew"?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (20 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":3pq1s6oy said:


> I agree on the direction of the ramp. It would seem better to me to have the ramp on the runway, sloping down. Derek?
> 
> The point he emphasises is that the ramp (or a skew plane) introduces the blade edge to the wood progressively, rather than the sudden shock of a perpendicular edge hitting a square board. This does indeed happen and can mess up the leading edge of the wood. If a 5 degree ramp is enough to eliminate that shock, it is useful.


So a 5 degree change of direction will reduce the planing "shock" effect? For all planing or just on a ramp? Very mysterious. 
Are there other ways of creeping up on wood so as not to surprise it? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Tom K (20 Dec 2015)

bugbear":hlt3c0bs said:


> Tom K":hlt3c0bs said:
> 
> 
> > Condeesto is at one of his fine benches skew planing a long board at 22.5 degrees the board is parallel to the front of the bench and he stands in front of the bench pushing the plane along the board's grain parallel to the front of the bench. He is skew planing and this produces a skew cut.
> ...



Good morning, assuming we are working left to right angle measured between left hand side flank of the planes body and the lower edge of our board or a line drawn through the board parallel to the edge and lets use a narrow board as per previous diagrams so that the blade is wider than the board.

As to definitions I will now say I believe the ramped board can produce a skew cut which simulates skew planing. By simulate I mean differing means to the same end result using the same components.

For those throwing their arms in the air and snorting its just an itch that needs scratching now and then :lol:


----------



## condeesteso (20 Dec 2015)

Hi Tom, I don't think we will get any further here unless you first accept that a skew cut has nothing at all to do with stock / workpiece. It is fundamental that you accept this so if not please explain why. My previous mention of me standing there planing a board did not help - sorry and I retract, imagine I never said any of anything to do with the actual wood.
I would personally like to bury the expression 'simulated skew' - I don't know where it came from but it should go back there 
I think we are all in place with what a skew cut is - I tried to capture it in as few plain words as I could and I am happy with my definition, but it was also said that there has to be vector motion (words to that effect), i.e. 2 components to edge movement, one forward and one sideways.

A ramped board cannot produce a skewed cut. Most certainly not.


----------



## Tom K (20 Dec 2015)

Condeesto you are defining and expounding on skew planing not skew cutting and in any case your vector is still there presently it is just applied differently.


----------



## bugbear (20 Dec 2015)

1) If, on a square board (say a coupla' feet on each side), we move the plane parallel in its own length, to the grain,
that's "normal planing", and definitely not skewed.

2) If we now turn the board through 45 degrees, we will now be planing corner-to-corner
but still not making a skewed cut; the planing action has not changed, merely
the angle of the workpiece relative to the planing stroke.

3) We could make a change equivalent to (2) by leaving the board where it is,
but rotating the plane, AND planing stroke through 45 degrees. The plane
is now (as in (2)) moving in its own length, corner to corner on the board,
and it's still not a skewed cut.

4) But a ramped shooting board is exactly case (3), where the ramp rotates the planing
stroke relative to the workpiece. Therefore it's (still) not a skewed cut.







(I've made the skew angle a nice big 45 to make everything more obvious)

BugBear


----------



## Tom K (20 Dec 2015)

bugbear":25sb8cz5 said:


> 1) If, on a square board (say a coupla' feet on each side), we move the plane parallel in its own length, to the grain,
> that's "normal planing", and definitely not skewed.
> 
> 2) If we now turn the board through 45 degrees, we will now be planing corner-to-corner
> ...


 
Are you just being obtuse?


----------



## condeesteso (20 Dec 2015)

Obtuse? at least there would be an angle involved which is NOT 90 DEGREES. That would be progress.

planing...cutting...bored now. I'm off.


----------



## bugbear (20 Dec 2015)

condeesteso":29a1qhpk said:


> Obtuse? at least there would be an angle involved which is NOT 90 DEGREES. That would be progress.
> 
> planing...cutting...bored now. I'm off.



Agreed. Any further discussion would likely just be (more  ) repetition.

BugBear


----------



## Tom K (20 Dec 2015)

condeesteso":4vbqiq6e said:


> Obtuse? at least there would be an angle involved which is NOT 90 DEGREES. That would be progress.
> 
> planing...cutting...bored now. I'm off.



There was mate. I just described the basis of a skew planning machine it was probably patented in the 19th century all it needed was a power feed to replace your left hand drawing the timber past the blade and a carrier to replace your right hand positioning the blade. I was going to call the Douglas Dragonfly but not if you won't play.........Laters dude (hammer)


----------



## Tom K (20 Dec 2015)

bugbear":hcdzhz9d said:


> condeesteso":hcdzhz9d said:
> 
> 
> > Obtuse? at least there would be an angle involved which is NOT 90 DEGREES. That would be progress.
> ...



I see its beyond you perhaps you are just a little square.


----------



## n0legs (20 Dec 2015)

Someone needs to firmly define some parameters here.
What is the point of reference to decide whether the angle at which a cutting edge is presented to the material, is in fact a skew cut ?
Grain direction, longest dimension?


----------



## MusicMan (20 Dec 2015)

Neither. It's the angle of the blade edge relative to its direction of motion, as has been said several times. Anything other than 90 degrees is a skew cut. The material is immaterial!

Keith


----------



## Tom K (20 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":bd2npoja said:


> Neither. It's the angle of the blade edge relative to its direction of motion, as has been said several times. Anything other than 90 degrees is a skew cut. The material is immaterial!
> 
> Keith



Now you are just waving a plane around whats the point in that?


----------



## n0legs (20 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":19f7d9zk said:


> Neither. It's the angle of the blade edge relative to its direction of motion, as has been said several times. Anything other than 90 degrees is a skew cut. The material is immaterial!
> 
> Keith



So it's accepted that a skew cut can be achieved without a skew plane, yes ?

I'm processing all of this :lol:


----------



## MusicMan (20 Dec 2015)

Yes. As we do when planing difficult material, rotate the plane by say 20 deg but keep the direction of the cut along the board.
Keith


----------



## bugbear (20 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":2j0l8ndu said:


> Yes. As we do when planing difficult material, rotate the plane by say 20 deg but keep the direction of the cut along the board.
> Keith



Like this:







BugBear (who didn't keep the original vector version of the diagrams  )


----------



## MusicMan (20 Dec 2015)

But yours is prettier!


----------



## n0legs (20 Dec 2015)

So, if we were to turn the piece of timber in BB's diagram 90 degrees, but leave the plane in the same position, would this still be a skew cut?


----------



## bugbear (21 Dec 2015)

n0legs":myzzamlh said:


> So, if we were to turn the piece of timber in BB's diagram 90 degrees, but leave the plane in the same position, would this still be a skew cut?



Yes - the angle of the workpiece makes no difference - think about a super-squirly piece of burr; we
can still take a skew cut, even though the grain direction is so mixed up as to be meaningless.

While I'm on;

It's often useful to examine extreme cases when marginal cases
are hard to think about.

So here's a diagram of an extremely large amount of skew (around 80 degrees). This is very
nearly all "slice" and no "push".






Now we now consider trying to make a ramped shooting board to
do the same.

Whilst one can have a ramp at 80 degrees, all you're doing is "pushing"
in a different direction; the slicey-ness of a skew cut is missing.

BugBear


----------



## Tom K (21 Dec 2015)

n0legs":2vaw2v1p said:


> So, if we were to turn the piece of timber in BB's diagram 90 degrees, but leave the plane in the same position, would this still be a skew cut?



Yes Nolegs even if you rotate so that the plane is horizontal its still skew provided the plane remains in the same position.


----------



## Tom K (21 Dec 2015)

bugbear":9bkccdb2 said:


> n0legs":9bkccdb2 said:
> 
> 
> > So, if we were to turn the piece of timber in BB's diagram 90 degrees, but leave the plane in the same position, would this still be a skew cut?
> ...



Does anyone ever use that sort of extreme angle? It looks like it may just put a gouge in workpiece.


----------



## bugbear (21 Dec 2015)

Tom K":3n0wr8nl said:


> bugbear":3n0wr8nl said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone ever use that sort of extreme angle? It looks like it may just put a gouge in workpiece.



No they don't; it is (as I noted) an extreme case to make the principles more evident.

BugBear


----------



## Tom K (21 Dec 2015)

Yeah more theoretical than anything I suppose. The reverse could be said of very shallow angles. I'd say 5 degrees often get's applied while doing straight planing without even thinking about it.


----------



## woodbrains (21 Dec 2015)

Hello,

I use a ramped shooting board, and they are very useful. Mine is ramped high towards the fence end, so it does not have a tendency to lift the stock off the board, and the ramp angle was decided on, by the maximum width of stock I anticipated planing. I figured about 8 in wide would be the max width of any drawer side I would make and 1/2 in max thickness. I made the ramp steep enough so (with a bit of leeway) a jack/try plane iron would have its entire width used planing such a board. I'm not sure why anyone would think it is a waste of time making such a board; continually using the bottom half inch of a plane iron and not touching any of the rest makes no sense to me at all. I do use a back fence that fits in a tapered housing. That way, any wear on the leading edge of the fence can be trued up and with a couple of shavings off the fence side, any shortening is compensated for. Mine has lasted a long time. 

Regarding the skew issue, it is confusing thinking about angles! Instead, think about what happens at the blade tip, to clarify what is going on. Skew planing does two things; it narrows the effective width of the blade and lowers the effective pitch, both making the plane easier to push. A ramped shooting board does neither of these things. In fact a RSB actually increases (albeit ever so slightly) the width of the shaving, so you could argue it is harder to use! In practice I find it makes no practical difference, but the saving in sharpening is well worth the effort. 

Just a comment on heavier planes; they have more momentum, so do help with this sort of work. Yes, they require more energy to push, but more momentum is easier to achieve with mass than speed. It is personal preference, of course, but I like a heavier plane for shooting, because of momentum.

Mike.


----------



## n0legs (22 Dec 2015)

:arrow: BB, Musicman, Tomk. Thanks for the explanation.
Mike (woodbrains) that's a great insight, thanks


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

woodbrains":3gsvu0mc said:


> .....
> Just a comment on heavier planes; they have more momentum, so do help with this sort of work. Yes, they require more energy to push, but more momentum is easier to achieve with mass than speed. It is personal preference, of course, but I like a heavier plane for shooting, because of momentum.
> 
> Mike.


You would soon change your mind if you had a lot to do as in the old days where somebody might be doing the same repetitive operation for a long time.


----------



## woodbrains (22 Dec 2015)

Jacob":2ftz70ut said:


> woodbrains":2ftz70ut said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Hello,

The momentum required to make the cut is the same no matter what plane is used and who is pushing it, otherwise it will stall. Momentum can be achieved with speed in a light plane, but since the action of cutting wood acts against the plane, there is only so fast a plane can go. Mass is not affected by the opposing force of the cut, so momentum is easier to achieve with mass than speed. 

I suppose if you have a lot to plane, you develop the physique to do it. Or are you saying old timers wimped out and modern woodworkers with a lot to plane are fitter and stronger than their ancestors? :lol: 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

woodbrains":o6yl0m4t said:


> Jacob":o6yl0m4t said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":o6yl0m4t said:
> ...


Your physics is so confused I can hardly begin to untangle it!
Hypothetically you could plane quite well with a plane of zero mass (and hence zero momentum at any velocity).
In fact you can plane quite well with a light plane (low momentum at a given velocity compared to a heavier plane) - ask all the woody users.
A heavy plane moving will have momentum behind the cut - but only to the extent that you have accelerated the plane beforehand - you don't get something for nothing - you have to put the force in.
But you also have to pull the plane back and start it off again- which will take more effort with a heavy plane. So you gain nothing (but may lose nothing) on the cut stroke but you lose on all the other movements of the plane.
Momentum comes into play with tools like hammers where an accelerated heavy object imparts all its energy in a short impact, but this isn't much like planing.


----------



## custard (22 Dec 2015)

woodbrains":3e15jr6b said:


> The momentum required to make the cut is the same no matter what plane is used and who is pushing it, otherwise it will stall. Momentum can be achieved with speed in a light plane, but since the action of cutting wood acts against the plane, there is only so fast a plane can go. Mass is not affected by the opposing force of the cut, so momentum is easier to achieve with mass than speed.



That's pretty smart. I've been planing wood for forty years but never thought of it in quite those terms before. Although what about the return stroke, surely then it's just dead weight?

The workshop where I trained didn't get electricity until the 1960's, and has a tradition of only ever using one bench plane, a number 7 or 8. When I spoke to the old boys who were around in those days they always claimed a big plane netted out as easier to use, but the older I get and the worse becomes the tennis elbow I find a light bevel up jack becomes the plane I reach for in the majority of cases!


----------



## matt_southward (22 Dec 2015)

If we are talking about the physics, then we first have to state our underlying assumptions with regard to the operation. Mike is correct in that the momentum _can_ be the same for a given, defined cut (we would have to measure the actual speed and mass of the relative planes to be able to equalise the momentum - who is going to do that?! So equality of momentum is theoretical at best. This assumes an equal number of strokes (not a given).

However Jacob is absolutely correct in that far more _work_ is done when shifting a heavier mass (work in the physics sense of energy expenditure). That forward and backward momentum of a higher mass comes at a pretty high price energetically, (and don't forget the higher losses due to increased friction with the higher mass), so it's likely a user preference as to which method they prefer, rather than absolute. If you were doing a lot of it, then you would pay the price in extra shredded wheat in the mornings!
I haven't done enough shooting with a woodie to be able to compare, but I can see the attraction for this use.

Another interesting thread!


----------



## ED65 (22 Dec 2015)

Jacob's arguments in favour of lighter planes seem to be borne out by the physics, but only if you look at it a certain way. How about factoring in that it's much harder for the wood to stall a heavier plane than a lighter one?

And as I made reference to a couple of pages back, in the days of woodies only the standard plane for shooting was a jack or larger. I don't think this was at all an accident since you can shoot perfectly well with a coffin smoother*. It's of course impossible to prove either way, but I would contend they specifically chose not to.

Much user experience firmly argues that a plane of greater mass can be the better choice, and there are at least three here that are in favour of this in practice and I know of at least two references to this in books (explicitly stated, not something you have to infer). 

*And in fact used appropriately that's one easy way to introduce a skew action!


----------



## woodbrains (22 Dec 2015)

Hello,

Not going to get into a silly tit for tat, as I said plane weight is personal preference, and I have used light planes and heavy ones and in between ones, it really doesn't matter. BUT, you can't go trying to prove lighter is better, by spouting twaddle.

No, you cannot have a massless plane with monentum, hypothetically or not. Momentum is a function of mass so zero mass, zero momentum, I'm afraid. In fact something with zero mass will have to travel at the speed of light and have no kinetic energy. Dangerous things, hypotheticals. 

Also, the mass of a heavier plane will not be affected differently by friction, but speed of travel WILL. Which is why bigger mass is more useful to get more momentum than high speed. I never said you get something for nothing, and the higher mass will require more user effort to get going. The lighter one will require more effort to keep it going as the higher speed needed to give an equivalent momentum is fought against harder by resistance in the cut. The only downside is, as custard says, the return stroke. Shooting boards take the weight of the plane, though, and a bit of wax to reduce friction will be more important than how heavy the plane is here. I never heard anyone who complained that they tired because of the rearward stroke being difficult, though! Just as an experiment, try shooting with a block plane and then a try plane. I know which I find easier. 

I have done a lot of shooting experiments at school, using the students, all girls, and just through observation concluded that they succeed with a Record T 5 or LA jack over LA block planes.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

woodbrains":19xtfuog said:


> Hello,
> 
> Not going to get into a silly tit for tat, as I said plane weight is personal preference, and I have used light planes and heavy ones and in between ones, it really doesn't matter. BUT, you can't go trying to prove lighter is better, by spouting twaddle.
> 
> ...


Confused again Mike! It'd help if you read what was written and tried to understand it, before commenting.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

ED65":kua2jwx8 said:


> ......
> Much user experience firmly argues that a plane of greater mass can be the better choice, ...!


It's the _length_ of a plane which helps on a shooting board (or edging a board etc), not the mass - it's just that longer planes are heavier, a.o.t.b.e.


----------



## bugbear (22 Dec 2015)

ED65":2zyw8dmg said:


> Jacob's arguments in favour of lighter planes seem to be borne out by the physics, but only if you look at it a certain way. How about factoring in that it's much harder for the wood to stall a heavier plane than a lighter one?



Short version - heavy planes smooth out the planing of knots, etc.

Long version:

If the wood were uniform, as long as the force from the muscles is
greater than the resistance of the wood to the blade, cutting will
proceed smoothly, and there would be no benefit in adding mass to the plane.

However, consider the case where the wood is NOT uniform
(and who wants to work boring wood?).

Excess energy, from the soft parts of the wood, where the force supplied is _greater_ than that
needed for that part of the stroke, is stored as kinetic energy
(the velocity and mass or the plane); this energy can be drawn
on in the hard parts of the wood, where the resistance
of the blade in the wood temporarily exceeds the force of the muscles.

The mass of the plane acts like a flywheel, smoothing the coupling
of the supplied work to the required work.

It's like KERS for planes.

BugBear


----------



## ED65 (22 Dec 2015)

Jacob":8knxb0j9 said:


> It's the _length_ of a plane which helps on a shooting board (or edging a board etc), not the mass - it's just that longer planes are heavier, a.o.t.b.e.


You're simply arguing from your a priori position Jacob. Your _belief_ is that lighter is better so anything that seems to support this.... I, and others, believe otherwise and we can just as easily pick and choose things that support our position. Case in point: the deliberately higher mass of some modern production planes. It is clearly stated that the metal chosen was, in part, to provide additional mass. They could just as easily have chosen a lighter alloy, just as strong, if lighter were better by their lights. 

I've only been woodworking for a couple of years, but I've done my fair share of end grain shooting and I have a low-angle block plane that I used to use for this. Once I got good enough at sharpening that a 4 would do the job on most woods I switched wholesale, because there's simply no comparison in the effort needed. So that's further empirical evidence of exactly what Mike was saying.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

You can only recover kinetic energy if you've put it there to begin with. But you've also got to stop the plane and reverse it - you don't get the energy back from these (except as body heat?)


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

ED65":myi53rdw said:


> ...
> I've only been woodworking for a couple of years, ...


I've been at it for 50 years or so. I've tried the modern heavy planes and they are more work than the old ones. Obvious and very simple. 
If weight was an advantage people would have added weights to old woodies but as far as I know this has never been done - because it would be pointless.
Tools where momentum is used (hammers, axes) have optimum weights, not necessarily maximum, depending on purpose.


----------



## ED65 (22 Dec 2015)

Not taking a dig, but greater experience doesn't automatically make you right. And naturally there are others with decades under their belts that are among those who disagree with you. So I don't think it's nearly so obvious and simple as you believe. 



Jacob":dao9mkpw said:


> If weight was an advantage people would have added weights to old woodies but as far as I know this has never been done - because it would be pointless.


I think you're right that that was not done in the past, but there are a number of modern plane makers who add weights to their wooden planes. In fact one was posted here in another thread only last week I think it was, and here's one from last year.

Ignoring what a few individuals believe, let's take your logic and run with it: if <lighter is better> were almost universally thought preferable then modern planes would almost certainly have been made to be lighter. It's easily done with many modern alloys to pick from. But yet, as far as I'm aware, mass is increased, not decreased, given the choice.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

ED65":2kcvz9vn said:


> ... let's take your logic and run with it: if <lighter is better> were almost universally thought preferable then modern planes would almost certainly have been made to be lighter. .......


Heavy planes just a recent modern fashion.
Having said that I wonder what was wrong with the pre war Stanley aluminium plane? Maybe just not durable enough.


----------



## MusicMan (22 Dec 2015)

I agree with BB, but would add that I think the advantage of a heavier plane for me is the sideways inertia. It is more resistant to sideways deflection by knots etc (because it needs more force to accelerate a larger mass). 

Keith


----------



## woodbrains (22 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":842pzraa said:


> I agree with BB, but would add that I think the advantage of a heavier plane for me is the sideways inertia. It is more resistant to sideways deflection by knots etc (because it needs more force to accelerate a larger mass).
> 
> Keith



Hello,

I think you mean momentum, not inertia, but your point is correct and what I have been saying.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

woodbrains":3r799rif said:


> MusicMan":3r799rif said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with BB, but would add that I think the advantage of a heavier plane for me is the sideways inertia. It is more resistant to sideways deflection by knots etc (because it needs more force to accelerate a larger mass).
> ...


No he means inertia, though in fact they mean almost the same (but not quite).
Yes inertia will resist deflection but so would increased pressure from the operator. Heavy/light planes work differently, but overall -_lighter_ means less work.


----------



## woodbrains (22 Dec 2015)

Hello,

On reflection, I might have misunderstood, he does mean inertia, but laterally, not in the direction of the cut.

Jacob, inertia and momentum are not the same thing and not interchangeable words. Go look up their definitions before you comment further. You CAN NOT do the same planing task with less momentum than is required to do it. So the light plane and the heavy one will have the same momentum. But the planing operation is resisting the increase in speed required for the lighter plane to have the same momentum as the heavier. The faster you try to move, the more it resists to the point where it is not possible to go fast enough. Mass is not affected by the planing operation, so it is easier to increase mass than speed for the same momentum. If you don't grasp this simple explanation, then I don't know how else to help; makaton sign language?

Mike.


----------



## MusicMan (22 Dec 2015)

I most certainly meant inertia. And while I'm at it, planes do not cut by momentum, they cut by force on the blade.

Keith


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

woodbrains":1j4w865e said:


> ..... You CAN NOT do the same planing task with less momentum than is required to do it. So the light plane and the heavy one will have the same momentum. But the planing operation is resisting the increase in speed required for the lighter plane to have the same momentum as the heavier. The faster you try to move, the more it resists to the point where it is not possible to go fast enough. Mass is not affected by the planing operation, so it is easier to increase mass than speed for the same momentum. If you don't grasp this simple explanation, then I don't know how else to help; makaton sign language?
> 
> Mike.


Momentum is mass x velocity. A light plane can cut exactly the same as a heavy plane (AOTBE) except; 
1 the cutting force of the heavy plane will have a greater component of momentum (as the operator accelerates it up to speed)
2 ditto ...the light plane will have less momentum but more force from the operator.

Think of a guillotine - the cutting force is the momentum of the blade m x v as it is accelerated by the force of gravity. If the blade weighed nothing it would not descend. If it weighed a gnats it would descend slowly and come to rest without cutting. If it was heavy it'd cut with force.
BUT if the blade was accelerated by the operator like a swinging axe, even if it weighed zero it would cut with the force of the operator's swing but with zero momentum.
Have a look at some of the school physics sites I'm sure you will get it eventually (perhaps :lol: )


----------



## matt_southward (22 Dec 2015)

woodbrains":eni77poq said:


> Also, the mass of a heavier plane will not be affected differently by friction,



Not true. Friction (as well as work done) is directly proportional to an objects mass: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html - so there _are_ energetic losses in using a heavier plane, it's particularly wasteful (energetically) to bring such and object upto the required speed therefore momentum and then to reverse that mass for the return stroke. The user may be happy with the extra energy required (for the benefits people have discussed), but that extra mass (work) is significant if there is a lot of planing to do, which supports Jacob's argument. It can be argued that the lighter plane offers more versatility in that the user may change the speed relatively easily (less inertia/friction to overcome) for a given task and will _most certainly_ use less energy overall. It's therefore more energetically efficient to use a lighter plane - but that doesn't mean it's better! _Better_ is a subjective argument and for the reasons people have argued, they may well prefer a heavier plane. I have no preference at the moment as I'm too inexperienced a woodworker, I just wanted to clarify the physics.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2015)

The heaviest planing I've ever done (i.e. maximum rate of removal of material) is with a scrub plane. Oddly enough it's the lightest plane I've got (Ulmia). It removes material so fast I had to enlarge the mouth for the fat shavings. Is still hard work but with a steel scrubber it'd be much much harder which is no doubt why they never caught on and old ones are scarce. Momentum holds you back (most of the time)


----------



## n0legs (22 Dec 2015)

Jacob":3hlvjfj8 said:


> . Oddly enough it's the lightest plane I've got (Ulmia).




What would this beast weigh, pray tell?


----------



## MusicMan (22 Dec 2015)

Well now, a light scrub with a large blade protrusion would just bounce off end grain in a shooting board, wouldn't it? Shooting boards are about accuracy and quality of finish, not rate of removal of material, and this is where momentum and inertia may be useful. 

Keith


----------



## bugbear (23 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":21529bhp said:


> Well now, a light scrub with a large blade protrusion would just bounce off end grain in a shooting board, wouldn't it? Shooting boards are about accuracy and quality of finish, not rate of removal of material, and this is where momentum and inertia may be useful.
> 
> Keith



Yes - scrubbing is done with short, fast strokes; rapid changes of direction where inertia is obviously not desirable.

But shooting - long, slow strokes.

Different planing techniques, different plane design constraints.

It's why we have more than one plane.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (23 Dec 2015)

Inertia doesn't help in either case.


----------



## MusicMan (23 Dec 2015)

Jacob, since you don't use shooting boards, how would you know?

I agree about lightweight scrub planes, thats what I use too. 

Your own method of planing end grain may work just as well with a light plane, but I don't use it so I wouldn't know.

Keith


----------



## Jacob (23 Dec 2015)

MusicMan":175w8a4n said:


> Jacob, since you don't use shooting boards, how would you know?
> 
> I agree about lightweight scrub planes, thats what I use too.
> 
> ...


I have used shooting boards - that's how I know. 
I used to have a purpose made one under the bench but it didn't get a lot of use as it's usually easier to improvise with a bench hook, or just up-ended in the vice.
In fact most end grain will be planed off from the finished item - end grain finishing before construction is not that useful.
They are attractive to amateurs as with so many clever ideas they offer an "obvious" solution to something which isn't particularly a problem.

PS I've just remembered - I used to use it a lot when I was making lots of little boxes, many years ago. Corner joined with a tongue and groove - each needing a final fettle for a close fit. So not totally useless!


----------



## MusicMan (23 Dec 2015)

Aha! He admits it! Sure, it depends on the work that you do and the design of the stuff you make. I find myself often banding plywood or MDF with ~5 mm hardwood, and the shooting board allows me to get the lengths very accurate so that the corners are neat. Fine length adjustments, e.g. of shelves is another use. And sometimes visible end grain is a feature.

This amateur finds them very helpful, anyway.

Keith


----------

