# Bench Plane - Sharpening/Tuning question



## Dissolve (25 May 2013)

Hello,

I sharpened all of my hand tools today, and I'm confident in creating an edge that can shave hairs! But my bench planes seem to lose their razor sharp edge quite quickly.

I was wondering how close to the blade edge should the cap iron/chipbreaker be set? I usually have it clamping just a fraction below the edge on the back of a newly sharpened blade.. But what effect does the distance between the cap iron and the blade have?

I usually grind my bevels then create a micro bevel a few degrees higher than the large bevel to polish on my fine stones which creates a razor edge.. Any thoughts on whether a micro bevel is better/longer lasting than just sticking with the polishing the ground bevel?

Thanks


----------



## dunbarhamlin (25 May 2013)

On a finishing plane, a very (very) closely set cap iron can help reduce tear out. On other planes its setting helps shaving ejection, and depends on how rank a cut you're taking.
As with other edge tools, what constitutes working sharp depends on the application, so you just have to get used to feeling when an iron needs touching up for the job at hand.
Using multiple or just a single bevel has no bearing on edge longevity. It just dictates/is a result of your sharpening/honing strategy. Single bevel keeps on top of sharpening/shaping, whilst multiple bevels saves up sharpening/reshaping for later.


----------



## Dissolve (26 May 2013)

dunbarhamlin":1ly8dhn0 said:


> On a finishing plane, a very (very) closely set cap iron can help reduce tear out. On other planes its setting helps shaving ejection, and depends on how rank a cut you're taking.
> As with other edge tools, what constitutes working sharp depends on the application, so you just have to get used to feeling when an iron needs touching up for the job at hand.
> Using multiple or just a single bevel has no bearing on edge longevity. It just dictates/is a result of your sharpening/honing strategy. Single bevel keeps on top of sharpening/shaping, whilst multiple bevels saves up sharpening/reshaping for later.



Hello,

Thanks for the tips! When you say a single bevel keep on top of sharpening/shaping and multiple bevels saves up sharpening/reshaping for later do you just mean you will need to re-grind the single bevel sooner as once the edge is dull the entire bevel needs grinding flat/honing?

Will increasing the distance between the cap iron and the blade produce a thicker cut? or is that solely down to the amount of blade protruding from the sole?

If I were to be using a standard no 4 say for thicknessing a board.. How would the plane benefit most from being set up?.. I'm not sure what would achieve best shaving ejection in this case?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 May 2013)

On the subject of edge life before resharpening, I find that about half an hour is the most I get in mild timbers such as Redwood, and rather less in harder timbers. That's working steadily but continuously, and with irons of 'normal' steel rather than expensive exotics. A re-hone will bring sharpness back, and I manage about eight to ten re-hones before the secondary bevel has become wide enough to justify a quick regrind.

Cap iron setting depends on what you want the plane to do. For heavy stock removal with thick shavings, about 1 mm is usually satisfactory, and for fine smoothing with very fine shavings, as close to the edge as you can get it - literally a hair's breadth. A try plane set up for final dimensioning of stock may take a slightly thicker shaving than a smoother, so the capiron should be just a shade further back, say about 1/4 mm or so. However, these are just a general guide - the type of wood you're working may demand slightly different set-ups. A few experiments on scraps, or the first few components of a project usually leads to the right sort of compromise between fastest stock removal and quality of finish. Like a lot of things in woodwork, judging what's best in a particular circumstance is something you get better at with experience, so the best thing to do is pile in and experiment a bit. The more shavings you make, the better you'll be able to judge a set-up that suits your planes, your wood, and your way of working.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (26 May 2013)

Using a single bevel strategy means that every time you hone the iron, you must remove metal from the full width of the bevel. For speed's sake this means always working the bevel on both medium and fine stones, whereas using a micro bevel, a number of honings can be undertaken using your fine stone only, until the micro bevel becomes too large to efficiently rework with a fine stone after which a longer session on your coarser stone (or grinder) will be required to reestablish the primary bevel. So with a single bevel strategy, grinding is only required when an edge is damaged, not as a part of routine maintenance.

Moving the cap iron further back from the edge will not produce a heavier cut, but it will _allow_ you to take a heavier cut. Consider the shape of the cap iron... It forms a wedge on top of the iron, which you are advancing into the slot of the mouth. The farther back, the thicker the shaving that can squeeze through the slot (but vide infra...the mouth can be widened.)

To efficiently thickness a board, you want to get within a whisker of final dimension as quickly as possible with a rank set plane, preferably with a cambered iron, and then sneak up on the last few thousandths of an inch with a finer set plane with little (or no) camber.
To set the plane up for the first operation, I would open the mouth wider (with a normal Bailey type plane, this involves removing the blade assembly, loosening the two screws thereby exposed and sliding the frog backwards) and set the cap iron 1/16" back from the edge (or more, in an amenable wood.) This both allows more room for shavings to pass and stops thick shavings curling too tightly next to the mouth, potentially leading to clogging.


----------



## bugbear (26 May 2013)

dissolve":358m42rh said:


> Hello,
> 
> I sharpened all of my hand tools today, and I'm confident in creating an edge that can shave hairs! But my bench planes seem to lose their razor sharp edge quite quickly.



Several factors effect edge retention in plane blades - including effective pitch, included angle, steel quality type, and abrasiveness of the wood.

BugBear


----------



## Dissolve (26 May 2013)

I'm currently using a no. 5 plane for everything at the moment, due to lack of funds! But I hope to get a few more in my collection before long!

Why would a cambered blade be better for fast stock removal and a straight edge blade better for finishing?

I find the no 5 very comfortable as I have large hands, is a no 4 smoothing plane any better for the purpose of thicknessing boards?

I can see why a lighter plane might be preferable when removing stock quickly and possibly the larger sole of a no 5 might be better for achieving a final flat surface?

Can anyone recommend some good reading material regarding bevel angles? Have no idea yet what angle to grind my blades at for different purposes! 

Many thanks


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2013)

Hmm, is this a "baited swim"?


dissolve":27326yse said:


> ......
> Why would a cambered blade be better for fast stock removal and a straight edge blade better for finishing?


Interesting question.
The force needed to push a sharp edge through wood is roughly proportional to the length of edge, so e.g. a narrow chisel will go deeper than one with a longer (wider) edge, given the same amount of force. 
A cambered plane blade is a bit like a gouge. For the same amount of force a shallow gouge will remove less material than a deep gouge with the same _edge length_ (hence narrower). The optimum shape of edge of given length for maximum material removal would be a semi circle (like a deep gouge ), but obviously this is not flat. The flattest surface is produced by the shallowest gouge shape, which also removes least material.

So it's down to striking a happy medium between deep (narrow) semicircular cut and rapid removal, or near flat (wide) cut and minimal removal. 

Unless used only for edge planing all plane blades need a bit of camber.
NB this oversimplified (there are other factors) but basically gives the picture


> I find the no 5 very comfortable as I have large hands, is a no 4 smoothing plane any better for the purpose of thicknessing boards?


Not much in it. Anyway they have the same size handles.


> ...
> Can anyone recommend some good reading material regarding bevel angles? Have no idea yet what angle to grind my blades at for different purposes!


30º for everything, until you are more into it. There is too much information out there!


----------



## Sawyer (26 May 2013)

In planing, the edge has to work hard, very hard and will not usually stay sharp for long, even with good quality steel. If you are doing any heavy duty work, eg. thicknessing a board of hardwood, expect to be re-sharpening every few minutes. Finer planing, eg. dressing joints, is easier on the steel, but sharpness becomes more critical, so you'll probably be re-sharpening just as often.

I find it good practice to avoid letting wood touch the floor, to avoid picking up grit - one of your plane's worst enemies. Also, as much as possible, try to avoid using abrasives until you have finished planing. Abrasive residue left in the grain will drastically reduce the edge life of your plane iron.


----------



## dm65 (26 May 2013)

dissolve":8ftcixn8 said:


> I'm currently using a no. 5 plane for everything at the moment, due to lack of funds! But I hope to get a few more in my collection before long!
> 
> Why would a cambered blade be better for fast stock removal and a straight edge blade better for finishing?
> 
> ...



Try watching this series of video's http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/v ... lanes.aspx - I did and they explained a lot to this old knownowt


----------



## bugbear (27 May 2013)

Jacob":3nlaoqic said:


> The force needed to push a sharp edge through wood is roughly proportional to the length of edge.



if that were even roughly true, a straight blade would require the same force, _regardless of depth of cut_, which is clearly nonsense.

There are more factors involved.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2013)

bugbear":2h6paoff said:


> Jacob":2h6paoff said:
> 
> 
> > The force needed to push a sharp edge through wood is roughly proportional to the length of edge.
> ...


You haven't understood the point. Never mind. It would be more civilised to ask another question rather than shrieking nonsense!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 May 2013)

dissolve":2dj44w5y said:


> I'm currently using a no. 5 plane for everything at the moment, due to lack of funds! But I hope to get a few more in my collection before long!
> 
> Why would a cambered blade be better for fast stock removal and a straight edge blade better for finishing?
> 
> ...




If I had to rely on only one plane, it would be a number 5. However, I'd be tempted to cheat, by obtaining at least one extra iron and cap-iron, and having it set up differently to the one already in the plane. I'd have one with a distinct camber ground and sharpened on it, at about 8" radius, and with the cap-iron set about 1/16" behind the edge. The other, I'd grind and hone straight across but with the extreme corners rounded off a touch, and the cap-iron set close to the edge. The reason for this is that you can swap the two irons and cap-irons over, the cambered one being used with a fairly deep cut (say 1/32" or even a bit more) and used predominantly across the grain for heavy stock removal and flattening warped boards, and the straight one set much finer for truing-up after the 'jack-iron' and for smoothing duties.

With this strategy, you may have to fiddle with frog setting when swapping blades, or if you use generally mild timbers, you may by experiment find a 'compromise' frog setting that does for both. Ideally, the 'jack-iron' would have a wide mouth to clear thicker shavings, and the 'try/smoother-iron' would have a much tighter mouth for a finer finish - that's how planes dedicated to duty would be set up. However, sometimes in woodwork, things that may not be ideal in adverse circumstances (wild-grained wood) can work tolerably well in easier conditions (mild wood) - hence the 'compromise' frog setting might work. Worth a bit of experimenting, anyway!

Once you're in a position to expand the plane collection, I'd go for a number 4 first, and set it up for fine smoothing (cap-irin very close to blade edge, tight mouth, very shallow depth of cut). Later, get a number 7 for try and jointer duties. The 7 will cost a lot, unless you drop on a good one at a boot sale; 4s can be found almost everywhere, so it's worth being picky and waiting for a really good one. With a jack, a try and a smoother, you'll have all the bases covered (though like most of us, you'll probably end up with a few more - for example, woodies don't cost much, and are fun to use....)

On bevel angles, about 95% of woodworking can be accomplished perfecly adequately with a 25 degree grind and 30 degree hone angles. Those angles are 'about', by the way - a couple of degrees either way won't cause any real problems.


----------



## bugbear (28 May 2013)

Jacob":2kaefo9s said:


> It would be more civilised to ask another question



Let's try that.



Jacob":2kaefo9s said:


> The optimum shape of edge of given length for maximum material removal would be a semi circle (like a deep gouge ).
> 
> it's down to striking a happy medium between deep (narrow) semicircular cut and rapid removal, or near flat (wide) cut and minimal removal.



If you believe that to be the case, why don't scrub planes, made for the fastest possible stock removal, take semi--circular cuts? The camber of a real life scrub is far below your posited optimum.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (28 May 2013)

bugbear":6m4453h5 said:


> Jacob":6m4453h5 said:
> 
> 
> > It would be more civilised to ask another question
> ...


Fair question. The answer is that yes for any given material and strength of operative an appropriately sized semi-circular gouge would remove most material. But you have to allow for diversity - or have a range of planes to cover varieties of wood
This is why scrubs are narrow and deep cutting - i.e. _on the way_ to a semi circular cut


----------



## bugbear (29 May 2013)

Jacob":3fe8ykvz said:


> The answer is that yes for any given material and strength of operative an appropriately sized semi-circular gouge would remove most material. But you have to allow for diversity - or have a range of planes to cover varieties of wood
> This is why scrubs are narrow and deep cutting - i.e. _on the way_ to a semi circular cut



I don't think the notion that cutting edge length is the main determinant stands any careful thought. It is obvious when using a plane that cutting depth, and the action on the shaving after it's been cut (e.g. effective pitch and cap iron distance) are also large factors.

With a curved edge, things become even more complex, since the cutting depth isn't even constant.

In the case of a scrub, used 45 degrees across the grain, many factors converge to give excellent efficiency - the shaving turns easily in the throat, since it is "short grain", but further, the curved blade completely frees the shaving at both ends.

In short - as with so many real life situation - the practice is often more complex than a simple theory.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2013)

bugbear":2s9z6dnn said:


> ....
> In short - as with so many real life situation - the practice is often more complex than a simple theory.
> 
> BugBear


Well yes, as I said earlier.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (10 Jun 2013)

Corneel":3np80yrj said:


> Chipbreaker [should be] set close to the edge. Very close, more then 0.3mm from the edge renders the chipbreaker mostly ineffective.



I've rather forgotten, in the heat of the moment finding the quote, what I was going to say about the above quote, but it's there for reference!

Regarding sharpening, we're stumbling into a minefield very quickly, but I would also say my planes get about 30 minutes of use before a honing is need. Personally I never got on with the micro bevel theory, the idea of regrinding the blade so often didn't appeal, so I switched to a technique I can only describe as a nano bevel! I make a bevel so small that the next time I sharpen I hone that bevel completely off (which is very quick because the bevel is so small), and then start again. This way I can sharpen very quickly, no rounding happens, and I don't need to bother with a pesky honing guide! :mrgreen: 

Fraser


----------



## lwilliams (11 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":2iaexu6w said:


> ...Regarding sharpening, we're stumbling into a minefield very quickly, but I would also say my planes get about 30 minutes of use before a honing is need. Personally I never got on with the micro bevel theory, the idea of regrinding the blade so often didn't appeal, so I switched to a technique I can only describe as a nano bevel! I make a bevel so small that the next time I sharpen I hone that bevel completely off (which is very quick because the bevel is so small), and then start again. This way I can sharpen very quickly, no rounding happens, and I don't need to bother with a pesky honing guide! :mrgreen:
> 
> Fraser



Sounds like traditional honing to me, Fraser. Just like Nicholson described in the 1830's:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_XYOAA ... 22&f=false

But then we had a bunch of people who couldn't figure it out reinvent the wheel and we got a lot of gimmicks like honing guides that just slow down the process and get in your way.

With my tremors, if I can quickly hone a good sharp edge anyone can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0ClNp_Eknw

But it is important to hone both surfaces that make up an edge because both suffer wear.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (11 Jun 2013)

lwilliams":3ugd3f3n said:


> Duncumb.fc":3ugd3f3n said:
> 
> 
> > ...Regarding sharpening, we're stumbling into a minefield very quickly, but I would also say my planes get about 30 minutes of use before a honing is need. Personally I never got on with the micro bevel theory, the idea of regrinding the blade so often didn't appeal, so I switched to a technique I can only describe as a nano bevel! I make a bevel so small that the next time I sharpen I hone that bevel completely off (which is very quick because the bevel is so small), and then start again. This way I can sharpen very quickly, no rounding happens, and I don't need to bother with a pesky honing guide! :mrgreen:
> ...



Thanks! I picked it up from my tutor, and didn't realise there was a historical basis for it! In my humble opinion I think it makes much more sense, but I'm sure there's an argument to be had there!
I would also always advocate flattening the back of the blade, more than anything to remove any burr (I don't bother with stropping, other than a quick brush on my hand), but it's much easier to do when there isn't any wear there!

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

lwilliams":1fltmuxv said:


> .......
> But it is important to hone both surfaces that make up an edge because both suffer wear.


Except for the fact that the flat face is going to be a much bigger area than the face of the bevel so it makes more sense just to remove material from the bevel until the wear is also gone from the face - as indicated by a burr right across. 
So you don't need to hone or flatten the face _at all_ except for the few quick passes to remove the burr. In time this eventually produces the appearance of a polished and flattened face but to do it in advance is a bit like stone washing jeans or distressing furniture - it may look how you want it but there's no other point to it.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jun 2013)

Jacob":3l1x1b6u said:


> lwilliams":3l1x1b6u said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...



But we are not trying to remove the wear bevel by honing the flat side, are we? So stop, yet again, putting words into someone's mouth and then telling them they are wrong. It is bloody tiresome. If you do not understand that a SHARP edge is formed by two equally polished intersecting surfaces, then there is nothing that the right minded posters here can do. But continually arguing the opposite ad infinitum will not make you correct. Just because you are obviously lazy, and try to justify your lazyness by declaring every other woodworker is wasting their time by doing something correctly, won't change anybodies minds.

Trust me, any novice out there who might not know already; there is no such thing as too sharp. Sharpness depends on two equally honed edges, so that there is no visible junction between them. Forget shaving arm hairs, use your eyes, if you can see an edge, no matter how small, you have not sharpened. If you do not polish the back as well as the bevel, you will see an edge. And by polished, I mean from a stone in the order of 6000 or finer for Japanese, black Arkansas (and then preferably stropped on chromium oxide) for oil stones or equivalents.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2013)

woodbrains":33c3h2z6 said:


> Jacob":33c3h2z6 said:
> 
> 
> > lwilliams":33c3h2z6 said:
> ...


Don't you read these posts? Here are two quotes from above: 
_But it is important to hone both surfaces that make up an edge because both suffer wear.

I would also always advocate flattening the back of the blade,_


> It is bloody tiresome. If you do not understand that a SHARP edge is formed by two equally polished intersecting surfaces, then there is nothing that the right minded posters here can do. But continually arguing the opposite ad infinitum will not make you correct. Just because you are obviously lazy, and try to justify your lazyness by declaring every other woodworker is wasting their time by doing something correctly, won't change anybodies minds


.A lot of misinformed amateurs are found to be spending hours flattening and polishing plane and chisel faces. I guess you are one yourself. 
Yes It is bloody tiresome - they pick up on that silly mantra _ a SHARP edge is formed by two equally polished intersecting surfaces_, which is sort of true but also misleading.


> ..... If you do not polish the back as well as the bevel, you will see an edge. And by polished, I mean from a stone in the order of 6000 or finer for Japanese, black Arkansas (and then preferably stropped on chromium oxide) for oil stones or equivalents.
> 
> Mike.


Nonsense. OK if you are into brain surgery or microtomy but completely irrelevant to woodworkers.
How on earth did we manage before we learned that "a SHARP edge is formed by two equally polished intersecting surfaces" or get our hands on "stone in the order of 6000 or finer for Japanese, black Arkansas" _(and then preferably stropped on chromium oxide)_ :lol:
You do talk b****x for a wood "brains". :lol: :lol: and offensive and bad tempered to boot.


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Jun 2013)

Explains it all with some much needed clarity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pdWAcK6Eh8


----------



## Duncumb.fc (11 Jun 2013)

G S Haydon":jnz91n0w said:


> Explains it all with some much needed clarity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pdWAcK6Eh8



Resisting the urge to pervert the use of the thank button by thanking this post...
If only some clever sod would make a "like button" :mrgreen:

Fraser


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Jun 2013)

Do it, you know you want to ;-)


----------



## Duncumb.fc (11 Jun 2013)

I shall stay true to my morals, but you have my written thanks! :mrgreen:


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Jun 2013)

Booooooo


----------



## lwilliams (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":1bwoexyh said:


> ...A lot of misinformed amateurs are found to be spending hours flattening and polishing plane and chisel faces. I guess you are one yourself.
> Yes It is bloody tiresome - they pick up on that silly mantra _ a SHARP edge is formed by two equally polished intersecting surfaces_, which is sort of true but also misleading...



Jacob,

You can't remove the wire edge without flattening the back, you just bend it back and forth. The wire edge is the indicator that tells you where you are on each grit but it has to be removed then recreated on each grit to use it as an indicator. The wear on the flat face is cumulative, if it's not removed it keeps getting worse and your edges dull faster. It's not misleading to say that the quality of the edge depends on the quality of the two surfaces that make up that edge.

Obviously you didn't watch the video. "Hours flattening and polishing plane and chisel faces???" Hardly! Didn't I sharpen two irons in about six minutes and at a slow pace so I could demonstrate the process?

I know I'm wasting my time with you but this may help others. Here's one of Steve Elliot's images. The brown line is where you'd have to hone the flat face to on your coarse stone, if you want to remove the wear that forms there when the edge really starts to go off at 200 feet. It's only about five or six microns deep but about 25 times as long streaming back from the edge. The blue line is where you have to hone the bevel to if you want to remove the wear by only working the bevel. The red line is the center line between the flat face and the bevel. The green line is where the cutting edge is moved to during the formation of the wear profile. You can see that initially most wear is on the flat face and, I believe, is caused by adhesive wear where the shaving is rubbing on the iron. If you go to Steve's web page ( http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/w ... files.html ) you'll find another image that shows you lose clearance at 200 feet. When clearance is lost the wear on the bevel accelerates because the bottom of the bevel starts rubbing on the wood causing growing adhesive wear issues on the bevel. The accelerating bevel wear becomes the dominant fastest growing wear profile if the iron isn't sharpened. It is pretty obvious that frequent sharpening is a good thing. If you sharpen frequently, you'll want to remove barriers to sharpening and make the process fast and easy. This is the traditional system and it evolved because it's the fastest, easiest, and most reliable method to get a sharp edge.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

That science of image is deeply dubious in at least one respect - viz "800LF"
That's 800 linear feet of shoulder planing.
A large traditional house door could have about 8 ft of shoulders and I find it unbelievable that anybody would plane _all_ the shoulders on_ one hundred_ large doors, without sharpening say at least 100 times. Bearing in mind that most shoulders wouldn't need planing much anyway this would be a many years of door production - without sharpening? 
The normal process of turning face down to remove the burr 100 times, would take care of the face, without the need for any special face flattening process.
That's the trouble with off-the-top-of-the-head theorising and amateur science - you get tangled up in a very unreal world.
Better to look at reality first and then adapt the science to fit, rather than the other way around. It may be apocryphal but a scientist is reputed to have proved the bumble bees can't fly!


----------



## Duncumb.fc (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":2anfgfyd said:


> That science of image is deeply dubious in at least one respect - viz "800LF"
> That's 800 linear feet of shoulder planing.
> A large traditional house door could have about 8 ft of shoulders and I find it unbelievable that anybody would plane _all_ the shoulders on_ one hundred_ large doors, without sharpening say at least 100 times. Bearing in mind that most shoulders wouldn't need planing much anyway this would be a many years of door production - without sharpening?



Jacob, your argument is somewhat ridiculous here.
You mention that a door has 8ft of shoulders, and given that the shaving thickness is 0.002" thick, I highly doubt that you would be giving each shoulder 1 pass. Extrapolate this out to 4 passes per shoulder, and you're suddenly at 25 doors. 4 passes I still reckon is a little less than adequate when the shaving is so thin, I'd guess we're looking closer to 10 passes. This gives 10 doors.

Think before you post, it'll save us all a lot of bother

Fraser


----------



## Peter Sefton (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob ridiculous? How very rude


----------



## Jelly (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":31fwq9e3 said:


> It may be apocryphal but a scientist is reputed to have proved the bumble bees can't fly!



Not apocryphal, but not the whole story either... Someone theorised that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, because they need to beat their wings at a rate faster than their neurons can fire to make their tiny little bee-muscles contract; Being that Bees can fly, they set out to find out how, the answer being that their wing is attached at the far end to some elastic tissue, then passes over a fulcrum, then is attached to the muscle... one muscle contraction provides enough power for the elastic tissue to oscillate, beating the wing several times.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (16 Jun 2013)

Peter Sefton":17e5lqyw said:


> Jacob ridiculous? How very rude



Not him, just his argument! :mrgreen: 

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":2xm2j0b4 said:


> Jacob":2xm2j0b4 said:
> 
> 
> > That science of image is deeply dubious in at least one respect - viz "800LF"
> ...


You are hung up on the hypothetical science again. In reality it's extremely unlikely that you would make anything like 4 passes per shoulder.You would probably ease one or two of them if necessary. Many of them you wouldn't touch, if you'd cut them accurately in the first place. The 800 linear feet should do 100 doors - unless _all _your cutting is inaccurate!.
But in reality you'd also give a quick hone before starting on each door. Or if you are only doing 10 then 10 honings (at a rough guess).
That's why these discussions go on so tediously - they are 90% hypothetical and half the time the participants have little grasp on the science to start with, let alone practical experience!

This elaborate face/flattening and polishing is a new idea. How did they manage in the old days?

PS and it would be interesting to see how BBeech did his 800ft. Some sort of jig? How did he get the shavings to be so precise? I'm dubious about the whole thing and I think a little more scepticism about many of the claims made by our would-be gurus, would be a good thing all round. Especially as the basic message from guru world is that things are much more difficult than you think and you are doing it wrongly. Two fingers to that!


----------



## lwilliams (16 Jun 2013)

That's a straw man, Jacob. I certainly didn't suggest pushing a cutting edge that far although the fore plane I sharpened in the video had planed a lot more than I normally would between sharpenings. Both those planes had spent two long days as demo planes at a show.

What are you bringing up architectural doors for? You need molding planes to make architectural doors. Show me how you sharpen a molding plane with your method. Traditional techniques work just as well for profiled molding plane irons as it does for straight irons. One can sharpen gouges, molding plane irons or skewed irons using traditional sharpening. With your "rounded bevel" method one is locked into only sharpening the easy to sharpen tools just as rigidly as if one was tinkering around with a honing guide. The stuff on your web site has a decidedly rectilinear look to it. Maybe if you learned to sharpen you could progress beyond that.


----------



## G S Haydon (16 Jun 2013)

Iwillimas, do you have a link to the video? I seemed to of missed it.


----------



## lwilliams (16 Jun 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0ClNp_Eknw


----------



## Duncumb.fc (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":249yside said:


> Duncumb.fc":249yside said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":249yside said:
> ...



The point was Jacob, showing how quickly 800ft could be reached.
800ft is not an unfathomable amount.

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

lwilliams":1h2hq50j said:


> ....
> What are you bringing up architectural doors for? You need molding planes to make architectural doors. .....


I read somewhere that the shoulder plane was more or less invented _for _trad doors (aren't they all architectural?) as they have long shoulders between lock/bottom rails and stiles, unlike smaller shoulders which are easily fettled with a chisel.
And in fact, in practice, the 92 etc is ideal for a shoulder on a 12" rail, particularly where there is a gun stock stile and both edges are angled and have to be matched.



> The point was Jacob, showing how quickly 800ft could be reached.
> 800ft is not an unfathomable amount.


It's a lot, it would be reached slowly, and in reality the plane would be honed many times before you got there.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

lwilliams":20c1xi03 said:


> That's a straw man, Jacob. I certainly didn't suggest pushing a cutting edge that far although the fore plane I sharpened in the video had planed a lot more than I normally would between sharpenings. Both those planes had spent two long days as demo planes at a show.
> 
> What are you bringing up architectural doors for? You need molding planes to make architectural doors. Show me how you sharpen a molding plane with your method. Traditional techniques work just as well for profiled molding plane irons as it does for straight irons. One can sharpen gouges, molding plane irons or skewed irons using traditional sharpening. With your "rounded bevel" method one is locked into only sharpening the easy to sharpen tools just as rigidly as if one was tinkering around with a honing guide. The stuff on your web site has a decidedly rectilinear look to it. Maybe if you learned to sharpen you could progress beyond that.


I sharpen moulding planes differently (but not that differently). They aren't shown on my site. 
I have learned to sharpen thanks - mainly by ignoring almost all the (contemporary) advice offered in mags and forums!
NB "rounded bevel" isn't a method - it's merely an incidental byproduct of a trad quick and easy sharpening system. Novices are advised to avoid it in case they are cheating by rounding _over_.

I posted about it in this thread flattening-chisel-backs-with-lapping-film-t68506-225.html


----------



## Duncumb.fc (16 Jun 2013)

> The point was Jacob, showing how quickly 800ft could be reached.
> 800ft is not an unfathomable amount.


It's a lot, it would be reached slowly, and in reality the plane would be honed many times before you got there.[/quote]

So because you reckon 800ft would take a long time to get to, then you're skeptical of the science?

Fraser


----------



## G S Haydon (16 Jun 2013)

Thanks for the link Iw, nice video. 

On the basis of sharing vids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F5aSs2ureQ I really like this one. Not for everyone I'm sure and he could of shared some info on plane blade shape for a smoother. That said I _really like_ it!


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":3ahnsun5 said:


> > The point was Jacob, showing how quickly 800ft could be reached.
> > 800ft is not an unfathomable amount.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sceptical of the science because it doesn't seem to correlate with reality. Par for the course in woodwork theory discussions!


----------



## Duncumb.fc (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":4t67ogfk said:


> Duncumb.fc":4t67ogfk said:
> 
> 
> > > The point was Jacob, showing how quickly 800ft could be reached.
> ...



Did you not read the post? It's a drawing of the blade edges as wear forms. It's irrelevant that it's a shoulder plane, it could be any plane with the same angle. It's probably also largely irrelevant what wood it is, a harder wood will wear the blade faster.
It wasn't there to tell you not to sharpen your blade until you hit 800ft, nor anything else. It was just an interesting illustration of what wear does to a blade.
How does that not correlate with reality?

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

Firstly because we have no idea of how B Beech did his 800ft of planing and obtained his result. 800ft is a lot of planing - if he was actually using it as a shoulder plane on end grain I doubt he would get anywhere near 800 ft before he had an impossibly blunt stump, even on softwood. 
Secondly in practice it is not necessary to "flatten" surfaces (beyond the flattening produced by taking the burr from the face - see my link above) - so to complete his experiment he needs to explain this* or demonstrate its falsity. So far he only has a hypothesis, albeit supposedly based on his experimental observations.

NB 800 shavings at 0.0015 to 0.002" taken from a 12" timber would take off 1.2 to 1.5 inches. Try it and see how you go!

*PS had a look at BB's site here 
He answers the question in the 3rd drawing down. That's roughly what most of us do i.e. take off a lot of the bevel and just skim the face. He says "Unfortunately, you also shorten the iron quite a bit". This is true except it's not unfortunate, as it removes much less metal than his alternative suggestion of flattening the face equally. There you go - he's wrong and thats all there is to it! Phew!


----------



## Duncumb.fc (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":1t4ml5e1 said:


> Firstly because we have no idea of how B Beech did his 800ft of planing and obtained his result. 800ft is a lot of planing - if he was actually using it as a shoulder plane on end grain I doubt he would get anywhere near 800 ft before he had an impossibly blunt stump, even on softwood.
> Secondly in practice it is not necessary to "flatten" surfaces (beyond the flattening produced by taking the burr from the face - see my link above) - so to complete his experiment he needs to explain this* or demonstrate its falsity. So far he only has a hypothesis, albeit supposedly based on his experimental observations.
> 
> NB 800 shavings at 0.0015 to 0.002" taken from a 12" timber would take off 1.2 to 1.5 inches. Try it and see how you go!



I am yet to understand why, when one was doing an experiment, that someone could not make 800 passes on a piece of wood? Do our bodies stop working after 100 passes or something?
Whether or not you think you should hone before this, this experiment merely shows what happens when you don't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":64pwxmju said:


> ....
> I am yet to understand why, when one was doing an experiment, that someone could not make 800 passes on a piece of wood? Do our bodies stop working after 100 passes or something?
> Whether or not you think you should hone before this, this experiment merely shows what happens when you don't. Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> Fraser


Edges go blunt. Try doing 800 passes on a 12" board. You obviously haven't done much planing which I guess is why you find this hard to understand.


----------



## G S Haydon (16 Jun 2013)

Just had a look at BB's site. Wow! That's one in depth look into sharpening. A little heavy for me I must admit. The only thing that springs to mind is were the edges of older craftspeople not good enough? 
Does this system offer a paradigm shift to a much sharper edge? I'm not sure. I should trial the system for myself to find out, sadly I am not likely to do so. I have found my edges to be adequately sharp over the years. I don't find myself thinking "I could do with a sharper edge here" (although fully respecting some do and that's cool with me and perhaps this system is a tonic for those people).
For the past decade or more I have just used a tormek and edges have been great. Recently I tried the P Sellers method and found a convex bevel was not for me, nor were diamond plates. Right now, on my personal tools (not my day job tools) a Norton Oil stone is just fine. Just like the guy in the vid I posted. 
Thanks again for posting the link to BB's site.


----------



## lwilliams (16 Jun 2013)

Brent Beach never learned one can control the wear bevel on the flat face. Don't confuse his site with Steve Elliot's.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

lwilliams":3rz92z9b said:


> Brent Beach never learned one can control the wear bevel on the flat face. Don't confuse his site with Steve Elliot's.


I think to avoid confusion I'll ignore them both! :lol:


----------



## Corneel (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":2h59g3my said:


> NB 800 shavings at 0.0015 to 0.002" taken from a 12" timber would take off 1.2 to 1.5 inches. Try it and see how you go!



You can plane a rabbet of that size without honing in between. You wouldn't take such thin shavings of course, and the blade would be quite blunt at the end, but it is doable. So I don't quite understand your abjection to this test from Brent Beech? He surely wasn't planing endgrain in his test.

In his diagrams you can see that the clearance angle starts to dissapear after 100 lineal feet, a good point to do a quick hone if you like to work with a sharp blade.

What I remember from his site is that he advocates a small backbevel to deal with the wear on the face side of the blade.

Oops, I think I mixed up Eliot and Beech too.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":ficai4xx said:


> Duncumb.fc":ficai4xx said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Actually, the lazy carpenter I am when it comes to sharpening, I wouldn't be surprised if my jack had done over 800ft. Yes, it's not sharp anymore, yes I should sharpen it, but yes, it still works for what I need it to do.
You remind me of someone I knew at school. When someone was persistent in an argument with him, whether he was right or wrong, he would suddenly start attacking the other person and making accusations, completely needlessly. He was 15. Are you 15 Jacob?

Fraser


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

Duncumb.fc":3kw7e5r2 said:


> ........
> You remind me of someone I knew at school. When someone was persistent in an argument with him, whether he was right or wrong, he would suddenly start attacking the other person and making accusations, completely needlessly. He was 15. Are you 15 Jacob?
> 
> Fraser


What accusations?
NB it'd be better not to adopt that childish bickering tone - grow up a bit duncumb, you are not at school now!
These threads go like this - trench warfare from entrenched positions with no advances. Though I'm quite pleased to have nailed the face flattening fallacy - to my satisfaction, if not anybody elses.


----------



## Duncumb.fc (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":3pqnsr2j said:


> You obviously haven't done much planing which I guess is why you find this hard to understand.


----------



## Carl P (16 Jun 2013)

> These threads go like this - trench warfare from entrenched positions with no advances.



Alas, 'tis the truth


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2013)

You throw in rather too many slightly sarcastic asides yourself. I suggest you stop it, or they'll all join in!


> Why is this so hard to understand?.....
> Think before you post, it'll save us all a lot of bother.....
> your argument is somewhat ridiculous here......


----------



## Duncumb.fc (16 Jun 2013)

Jacob":1m747es6 said:


> You throw in rather too many slightly sarcastic asides yourself. I suggest you stop it, or they'll all join in!
> 
> 
> > Why is this so hard to understand?.....
> ...



Sorry Jacob, didn't realise you were a saint.

Fraser


----------

