# Sole flattening - Paul Sellers



## Aled Dafis (14 Apr 2012)

I wasn't to sure what to think of Paul Sellers the first time I came across him, but the more I read and watch, the more I recognise that he's a very skilful craftsman with very efficient working practices.

His sole flattening video on Youtube is quite interesting, I'm not sure if I'd go this far, but his arguments for rounding the edges slightly do make sense. It may be why so many old planes we find at car boot sales aren't totally flat, the craftsmen of yesteryear might have known something we've seemed to forget. A bit like the Romans using cement, and then it's use disappearing for a few hundred years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQyjLV92 ... ature=plcp

What do you guys think?

Cheers
Aled


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Apr 2012)

Rounded soles; rounded bevels - next they'll be telling us the Earth's not flat...... :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Richard T (14 Apr 2012)

That's just how I flatten a sole - with a longer flat surface maybe. 

As for taking the edges and corners off, I can't remember ever catching with a plane - I think the way I have avoided doing that is to just not do it. 
Maybe they will get left very sharp from sole flattening, but I would barely touch them personally - maybe the merest wipe with some emery.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (14 Apr 2012)

I recall encountering Paul a couple of times eighteen or so years ago when I lived in Texas. He came across as an uncomplicated type when it came to tools in the sense of just setting them up good enough to work and get on with the job. That philosophy fits in very neatly with the way I like to work. 

So, in general what I looked at on that video makes sense to me and follows pretty much what I do with a couple of wrinkles. I stick 60 or 80 grit paper down on to the bed of a surface planer or saw to get the sole flat quickly. You can get long rolls of coarse paper from places like B&Q and elsewhere so you can set up an abrasive surface with a long stroke if you like for particularly out of flat plane soles. I differ again from Paul where I reckon anything with a sole flattened on 80 grit paper is more than good enough to work-- you can go finer if you like, and I generally do just for aesthetic reasons, up to about 180 or 220 grit generally. Anything beyond that isn't unnecessary with regards to ability to do the job.

I've never eased off the outer edges as he does, but what he demonstrates is really no more than an extension of the need to round off the sharp cornered edges all around the sole anyway, which he did at the back end in his demo. The easing off using a rule seems logical and reasonable and I'd say almost certainly won't hurt performance, and could well help too.

I found it interesting the point he made about not bending the sole of the plane during the flattening process. He's right to note that plane soles can be bent of course because I've been purposely bending and twisting plane soles in use to achieve specific effects for decades. 

Absolutely perfect sole flatness is not necessary for a woodowrker to achieve excellent results. Concave soles are often a problem and can cause great difficulties in working wood, but slightly convex plane soles are much less challenging, and can even help a bit from time to time. I suppose the reality is that I've always just needed my tools to work effectively, and I've never had the time, need or inclination to worry too much about perfection, including the use of planes with perfectly flat soles, because, as noted earlier I sometimes purposely bend a plane sole whilst I'm using it. Slainte.


----------



## richarnold (14 Apr 2012)

All this talk on the forum about how to flatten planes made me think about my own planes I use every day at work. My main workhorse is an early panel plane marked Buck, but is actual a Spiers, so i dropped a straight edge on it yesterday, and lo and behold it's not flat!!!! Its actual convex in it's length. Shock horror!! what should i do? break out the 60 grit and spend hours truing it up. I think not. having used it for years like this, and not noticing any problem with it, i think i will leave well alone. Having said all that I have to say that years ago I made a violin, and when it came to shooting the center joints on the back and belly, i opted to use a shooting board and the longest plane i had which was a no7 record. I seem to remeber spending hours trying to get those damned center joints right, but to no avail. It eventually twiged that the no7 was far from straight, so i tried my trusty 15 1/2 inch early norris panel plane instead. within seconds the joints were perfect!!!!. Now that plane was flat, and still is!!!!


----------



## JohnCee (14 Apr 2012)

I never understand this business about having to have the blade fitted when flattening the sole on the assumption that the pressure on the blade changes the shape of the sole in some way. If this were true then how come plane makers surface grind soles without frog/blade fitted? I'm sure this is just an old wive's tale.


----------



## matthewwh (14 Apr 2012)

Hi John,

The castings are held in jigs that replicate the pressure applied by the frog and handle screws. The planes are then checked after assembly with all the goodies fitted to ensure that they are correct. 

You would be surprised how much difference the pressure from a lever cap makes.


----------



## ac445ab (14 Apr 2012)

Ciao, 
I stop lapping the sole onto 180 grit abrasive paper. I think so is enough. 
I use to round sole corners of smoothers keeping the plane with an angle to the abrasive surface and moving it back and forth several times. 







Giuliano


----------



## JohnCee (14 Apr 2012)

matthewwh":ebvbw1be said:


> Hi John,
> 
> 
> You would be surprised how much difference the pressure from a lever cap makes.




My planes and straight edges tell me it makes no difference whatsoever.


----------



## James C (14 Apr 2012)

JohnCee":1vlmijs2 said:


> matthewwh":1vlmijs2 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi John,
> ...



That's quite interesting, I suppose that not all planes are the same. It is possible that the slackening off of the lever cap causes the plane to even twist slightly but I guess that could only be due to imperfections in the casting on one side compared to the other.


----------



## Jeff Gorman (15 Apr 2012)

Alded Dafis wrote:

> but his arguments for rounding the edges slightly do make sense.<

It is possible to think of a bench plane as running on two skids ie, the 'lateral margins', ie the areas each side of the projecting part of a cambered cutting edge, and running the length of the plane. 

A highly critical perfectionist might wonder whether it is a good idea to modify these areas, even if the modification is quite small.

Folk who want to look into the pro and cons of plane flattening might like to look at http://tinyurl.com/3xjpbm2

Jeff
http://www.amgron.clara.net


----------



## matthewwh (15 Apr 2012)

JohnCee":320b7vt2 said:


> My planes and straight edges tell me it makes no difference whatsoever.



Best you pop round to the Clifton factory and put them straight then.  

Just kidding, have you tried loosening off the frog retaining screws? Normally there is a good couple or three thou of flex between loaded and unloaded.


----------



## JohnCee (15 Apr 2012)

the frog retaining screws making a difference is something I'll buy, but not the lever cap.
The chap in the video is not flattening to anything like 2-3 thou tolerances anyway, with his granite tile and his magic marker.
Not that any of this really matters in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Dangermouse (15 Apr 2012)

Well I hope a flat sole gets you into heaven or at least helps you walk straight or even keeps the fish flat on the pan.


----------



## David C (16 Apr 2012)

Matthew,

I warned for many years, that excessive torque on the frog fixing screws might distort a Bailey style body casting, just behind the throat. The machining was very poor in the 80s and 90s and the cast metal was very soft. I was sure this happened.

Recently I was restoring some old Stanleys, no5 & 5 1/2 from about WW2, and decided to see if I could detect any deflection, with a test dial indicator and magnetic stand. (After "seating" the frog). I could not.

I then tried varying lever cap tension, as I had seen it suggested that this might have some effect, but could detect no change, as I expected.

Accurately machined Bedrock frog fixing has no effect on the sole. I am quite certain of that. 

So was it only new Bailey planes, in the second half of the last century, which exhibited deflection of the sole, and who might have done work to demonstrate this?

Best wishes,
David


----------



## bugbear (16 Apr 2012)

David C":3t6j5yre said:


> I then tried varying lever cap tension, as I had seen it suggested that this might have some effect, but could detect no change, as I expected.



That would be extraordinary - the lever cap would have to flex the sole indirectly, by flexing the frog, which is a VERY thick, blocky casting.

As to knocking off the sharp arris after flattening a metal plane's sole - yes, this is no more than common sense.

But actually creating a substantial "round" at the perimeter seems unwise. The Japanese tradition is to keep plane soles very "square"; the stated reason is so that shavings on the work surface are pushed away, and do not introduce themselves under the sole.

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Apr 2012)

David C":qdiwe2fa said:


> Matthew,
> 
> I warned for many years, that excessive torque on the frog fixing screws might distort a Bailey style body casting, just behind the throat. The machining was very poor in the 80s and 90s and the cast metal was very soft. I was sure this happened.
> 
> ...



David,

To get any conclusive data on sole deflection, you may have to resort to an inspection grade or calibration grade surface plate and a tenths clock. You may have to devise a jig to hold the plane under test, as well. I doubt that a DTI with 0.001" resolution would be sensitive enough to detect deflections of even a try plane, and a workshop grade surface plate (especially the budget ones) may be more 'out of flat' than the plane.

All castings as thin as plane bodies (and in casting terms, plane bodies are very thin castings) will distort under their own weight, and the added loads of frog screws, lever caps and even handle fixings will produce distortions. How much? Enough for some to be significant, others less so; but if the plane sole is finished with those loads applied, it will be true enough, and certainly within the British Standard allowance for out-of-flatness. About a century and a half of experience also suggests that once the plane has been 'set up', whatever deflections there may be are not noticable enough to affect adequate performance.

In practical terms, to avoid any deflection problems, lap the plane sole with the frog in place and the frog screws at working tightness, the blade in place (but retracted) and the lever cap at normal tension. Also pay close attention to the flatness of the lapping surface - the plane flatness can only reflect the flatness of what it was lapped on. Most of us find that a piece of float glass on a clean, flat bench is plenty good enough to give good working planes. If you need anything flatter than that, you may have to resort to surface grinding or similar techniques. (Personally, I don't think it's worth the bother.) Checking HOW flat it is afterwards will need some very fancy metrology kit.

In general, if a plane will take shavings thin enough to be transparent, it's flat. Another test may be to make three straight edges. When all three will mate against each other without showing any light, they are straight, so your plane sole is plenty straight enough.


----------



## custard (18 Apr 2012)

David C":1gye94t6 said:


> Matthew,
> 
> I warned for many years, that excessive torque on the frog fixing screws might distort a Bailey style body casting, just behind the throat. The machining was very poor in the 80s and 90s and the cast metal was very soft. I was sure this happened.
> 
> ...



Karl Holtey says most woodworkers would be astonished if they realised how much the sole of the average plane can deflect in use. 

I believe him. 

My father (a cabinet maker) used to work with another cabinet maker who used a straight honed iron to true an edge (my father was of the cambered edge school), and I remember seeing this chap physically twist his Stanley 06 or 07 while truing an edge. I remember my father saying he couldn't fault the results, so it just showed there's often different ways to the same conclusion.


----------



## bugbear (18 Apr 2012)

Having now watched the video a coupla' times, I have to say that his plane must have been very-near-to-flat to start with, because he got it "dead-true" (he claimed) in around 90 seconds on 120 grit.

More seriously, I question how flat (during use) his lapping surface was, being a thin granite tile, which was only partially supported, under seriously work loading.

BugBear


----------



## Sgian Dubh (18 Apr 2012)

custard":2uugiw56 said:


> ... seeing this chap physically twist his Stanley 06 or 07 while truing an edge.


That sounds very similar to something I said in my first post in this thread-- something like three posts down from the opening question. It's an old and valid technique. Slainte.


----------



## David C (18 Apr 2012)

I believe Richard Jones bends planes, but I prefer the cambered edge approach, as it is easy to teach.

The flatness of Granite tiles bothers me too.

David


----------



## Harbo (18 Apr 2012)

And it was not supported very well?

Rod


----------



## JohnCee (18 Apr 2012)

Harbo":jd619084 said:


> And it was not supported very well?
> 
> Rod



Yes, but at least the cap iron was tightened down.


----------



## Jeff Gorman (18 Apr 2012)

Custard wrote:

Karl Holtey says most woodworkers would be astonished if they realised how much the sole of the average plane can deflect in use.

The proof of the pudding is in the testing as at http://tinyurl.com/7oeqdez

I wouldn't be surprised, for similar body shapes, to find that mild steel deflected more than cast iron, but this is only an instinctive response.

Jeff
http://www.amgron.clara.net


----------



## Corneel (18 Apr 2012)

How about a wooden plane? I think it is a lot harder to bend a 3" square block of beech.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (19 Apr 2012)

David C":3s6341uf said:


> I believe Richard Jones bends planes, but I prefer the cambered edge approach, as it is easy to teach.
> David


David, like you, my plane blade cutting edges are generally curved slightly, but I still bend a plane's sole when doing so is useful. This is particularly the case with my no. 7 try plane, rarely so with no. 5 jack planes, and never intentionally with something like no 4 smoothing planes. I don't use a no. 6 plane: I don't even own one, so I guess this is a size for which I've never found a purpose. Slainte.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Apr 2012)

Jeff Gorman":30wtfzwe said:


> Custard wrote:
> 
> Karl Holtey says most woodworkers would be astonished if they realised how much the sole of the average plane can deflect in use.
> 
> ...



Interesting - thanks for posting that, Jeff.

According to classic beam theory, the deflection of a beam is proportional to the cube of the length (that's why 3' of 6"x1" PAR redwood seems quite stiff, but 10' of it flaps about). So a longer plane will deflect much more than a shorter on under a given load.

Another thing that beam theory tells us is that stiffness is proportional to the cube of beam depth, so thicker castings will be much stiffer. (That's also why joists are always edge-upwards - much stiffer that way.) A very 'quick and dirty' check on my LN 5 gives a sole thickness of 3/16" full, and the Record 07 gives about 1/8" - so the resulting increased sole stiffness of the premium planes may be a factor in their better performance. (I don't have a Clifton, Veritas or Quangsheng to measure, but I suspect their soles are quite meaty like the LN's.)

It's also probably true that a wooden plane with a 3" square section will be less subject to deflection than a 1/8" thick (or thinner) cast-iron soled plane. However, the woody will be more likely to distort with atmospheric changes, and will wear more quickly, so there are advantags and disadvantages to either. I suppose by trying to get the best of both worlds, it might be possible to make a much thicker metal soled plane, which would be much stiffer, more wear-resistant and less subject to atmospheric-induced distortions than the woodies, but it might be a very heavy plane to use!

On balance, given the very fine work that has been done and is being done with both wooden and metal planes, I think that in plane design, we have found the happy balance between theoretical perfection and practical pragmatism that works best. It would be possible to design a plane that was so stiff as to almost foolproof in use, but it may be so heavy as to be unusable. It is possible to manufacture to insane degrees of flatness, but as we have seen, normal use imposes deflections that negate that. The secret of success is the combination of pragmatic design, pragmatic manufacture and good technique in use.

Which basically pretty much confirms what we all 'knew' anyway.


----------



## Harbo (19 Apr 2012)

Are you talking about bending moments here?
They are dependent on span but your argument seems to be based on the idea that the plane is only supported at the front and back edges.
The actual span will vary according to irregularities in the sole and the profile of the wood being planed. No hollows - no BMs as it is being fully supported?
It will however be subjected to forces from the front and rear totes and any twisting that the woodworker might induce ?


Rod


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2012)

Cheshirechappie":22djskzq said:


> Which basically pretty much confirms what we all 'knew' anyway.



Absolutely! Any theory which shows that something which is demonstrably working can't work is clearly a theory with some "issues".

Conversely, the laws of maths and physics apply wether you care about them or not.

Personally I find it of great interest to understand as fully as possible why and how something works.

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Apr 2012)

Harbo":3pgl3w7q said:


> Are you talking about bending moments here?
> They are dependent on span but your argument seems to be based on the idea that the plane is only supported at the front and back edges.
> The actual span will vary according to irregularities in the sole and the profile of the wood being planed. No hollows - no BMs as it is being fully supported?
> It will however be subjected to forces from the front and rear totes and any twisting that the woodworker might induce ?
> ...



I'm not trying to make any precise or analytical point, here. Just that longer planes will deflect more than short ones under a given load, and that quite small increases in plane sole thickness (and perhaps more significantly, deeper side webs) will stiffen them up quite a bit.

Jeff's experiments showed that applying loads of the sort that you might generate in normal use will deflect the sole of a Record 05 by detectable amounts, certainly enough to nullify, or certainly to influence the effects of, 'last thou' plane sole flattening.

It's perfectly true that under normal working conditions, there are a lot of variables - elasticity of the workpiece, plane design, the exact position and magnitude of loads imposed by the operative. A plane sole is a fairly complex beam, but it's still a beam in effect. Doesn't really matter what sort - the point is that it'll deflect, both under it's own weight, and under normal loads in use. The exact design of the side webs will have a significant effect on overall stiffness, too.

It may be possible to analyse exactly what happens to a plane in use, using such analytical tools as finite element analysis. However, I don't think there's much point. We know how to set up planes and use them to give acceptable results. A reasonably flat sole helps to that end. In the end, that's all that matters. 

If Mr Sellers gets acceptable results with his planes, then don't knock his method. Other people get equally acceptable results with other variations of sole-flattening methods. Plane soles concave in length or width don't work well, soles very slightly convex in length can do - and Sellers seems to indicate that soles slightly convex in width work OK as well. Maybe, as long as sole flatness is in the right parish, the last thou or so doesn't matter as much as sound planing technique.


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2012)

Cheshirechappie":cxmj3wv2 said:


> If Mr Sellers gets acceptable results with his planes, then don't knock his method.



Some people get better after homeopathy 

BugBear


----------



## Racers (19 Apr 2012)

So if I dilute my grit down to where there is none left, it will flatten a plane in next to no time :wink: 

Pete


----------



## János (19 Apr 2012)

Hello,

The behaviour of a cast or dovetailed bench plane resembles more closely the behaviour of an "u" channel. By the way, this talk about 0,01 mm and smaller deflections and tolerances in a hand woodworking context is not a really valid one. Wood is a very resilient material, and actual deflection of a wooden workpiece might be much larger than any deflection/bend in the hand tool itself. In fact, the only really serious flaw/issue of a bench plane, the one which renders it useless, is a lengthwise warp of its body. In fact the cast iron Stanley planes I have slowly but permanently change their shapes, under the static load of the installed frog/blade assembly and knobs. The area behind the blade bulges out again and again, a little twist develops in the sole etc...

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Mr T (19 Apr 2012)

Hi

Watching the video it is interesting that Paul doesn't actually test whether the sole is in fact flat after his treatment, he just tells us it is.

On this flexing of the sole. I sharpen my blades straight across but find I can get a laterally tapered shaving by changing the position of the plane on the wood (I have a video on Facetube about this) . Is this because I am flexing the plane as Sibn Dubh suggests? I don't know, I just know it works!

Chris


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2012)

Mr T":37265io3 said:


> Hi
> 
> Watching the video it is interesting that Paul doesn't actually test whether the sole is in fact flat after his treatment, he just tells us it is.



His justification/rationlisation is that the scratch marks (and the removal of his magic marker lines) show that the plane's sole has made a contact (presumed to be uniform) with a lapping surface (presumed to be flat).

BugBear


----------



## David C (19 Apr 2012)

Chris,

I wonder if your plane sole is convex in its width?

With a straight edge blade, this would give heavier shavings towards the sides.

Do you move your plane towards or away from the high side of a 3/4 to 7/8 inch wooden edge? 

(In my workshop, if it hasn't been tested it's not finished).

best wishes,
David


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2012)

Mr T":3sdwql64 said:


> I sharpen my blades straight across but find I can get a laterally tapered shaving by changing the position of the plane on the wood (*I have a video on Facetube about this*)



Can I have a simpler clue (or link) please?

BugBear


----------



## Mr T (19 Apr 2012)

Hi

Bugbear, the link is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJfD...DvjVQa1PpcFNQggsCSQRqkfYKlHz1cg5Y6Hqrg-o2y8Q=

David C., the plane sole is flat across the width. I know you suggest that tapered shavings cannot be taken with a non cambered blade, all I can say is it seems to work. Is it to do with weight distribution or the flexing of the sole suggested earlier?

Chris


----------



## Sgian Dubh (20 Apr 2012)

Mr T":yqqyrozl said:


> ... I know you suggest tapered shavings cannot be taken with a non cambered blade, all I can say is it seems to work. Is it to do with weight distribution or the flexing of the sole suggested earlier?
> Chris


Neither of those I suspect Chris because I bet your blades aren't sharpened straight across. More than likely your sharpening technique includes the normal practice of bevelling or slightly rounding over the corners so that they don't dig in which would leave a sharp ridge on each pass of the plane. This bevelling will be enough to do what you describe and demonstrate in your video.

I used to be a straight cutting edge type myself, with the aforementioned corner bevelling, and did pretty much as you demonstrate. Nowadays my blades are generally sharpened with a very slightly curved edge, but I still bevel the corners a little more, so I do pretty much exactly what you do.

When it comes to plane sole flexing I mostly use this to bend the sole lengthwise so that I can deal with hollows and humps on either the face or edge of a board. Twisting or torsioning a sole deliberately to get a specific effect is less common on my part because it's a technique primarily for straightening an edge that's high on one side, and as you demonstrate in your video there are alternative ways of achieving that end result. Slainte.


----------



## woodbloke (20 Apr 2012)

Mr T":1d4cq6ul said:


> David C., the plane sole is flat across the width. I know you suggest that tapered shavings cannot be taken with a non cambered blade, all I can say is it seems to work.
> 
> Chris


Same here...my blades are always honed flat (difficult to do anything else with a Kell guide) I've never had any sort of problem in planing an edge and do it in the same way as it Chris's clip...'cept I don't put the plane sole down on the bench  :lol: - Rob


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2012)

I do the same but with a cambered bade. If Chris's edge_ is_ dead straight I guess he is simply putting more pressure on one side (effectively tilting the plane a touch) at the start and than transferring it to the other side towards the end.


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2012)

Mr T":2ebm208t said:


> Hi
> 
> Watching the video it is interesting that Paul doesn't actually test whether the sole is in fact flat after his treatment, he just tells us it is.....


I guess he just assumes that it is_ flatter_ but then _in using it_ may decide it's still not flat enough and give it another go.
That's more or less what I tend to do with many of these processes - flatten/hone/set _a bit_,then see how it goes.


----------



## Mr T (20 Apr 2012)

Hi

Rob said:



> Same here...my blades are always honed flat (difficult to do anything else with a Kell guide) I've never had any sort of problem in planing an edge and do it in the same way as it Chris's clip...'cept I don't put the plane sole down on the bench - Rob



I've never bothered about that. Mainly because I think that at least if the plane is flat on the bench then the blade is protected from damage from other tools placed near it. I'm a bit of a slob and don't have the well ordered bench I'm sure you have Rob  .

Sgian Dubh, I don't round over the edges far enough to have an effect. I would agree with Jacob that it's a matter of weight distribution.

Chris


----------



## woodbloke (20 Apr 2012)

Mr T":ts6imh3c said:


> I've never bothered about that. Mainly because I think that at least if the plane is flat on the bench then the blade is protected from damage from other tools placed near it. I'm a bit of a slob and don't have the well ordered bench I'm sure you have Rob  .
> 
> Chris


Meant in jest Chris, and no offence whatsoever intended. My bench gets *really* cluttered at times which irritates the hell out of me, but I keep a pot of pencils in the bench well with long strips of wood (offcuts) in it...I put the planes down on these. I also have the 'Tool Wall' directly behind it so that when a particular section of the job's been done, the tools get replaced on the wall...just heaps me to keep the place tidy.
Interestingly, I've just done a piece for F&C where some of the issues touched on in this thread have been included...planing a long edge is one - Rob


----------



## David C (20 Apr 2012)

I have never suggested that squaring an edge cannot be done with a straight blade, as I know plenty of you do this.

It would be useful to know *how*, as I could then explain it to others.

David


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2012)

David C":u074fnbh said:


> I have never suggested that squaring an edge cannot be done with a straight blade, as I know plenty of you do this.
> 
> It would be useful to know *how*, as I could then explain it to others.
> 
> David


By distributing the pressure, as discussed above. Try it and see for yourself.


----------



## David C (20 Apr 2012)

Right, I have been experimenting, without sucess. The plane sole has two possible positions, on the wood or tilted and balanced on an edge which is unstable and unusable.

When the plane is on the wood it takes an even shaving, despite being moved from side to side.

If it is moved over far enough, until one side of the edge is not being cut, a correcting shaving can be taken, but this has nothing to do with distribution of pressure.

Perplexed.

David


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2012)

David C":3e1rrtix said:


> ........The plane sole has two possible positions, on the wood or tilted and balanced on an edge which is unstable and unusable........


It has to sit flat on the wood so there is only one position, but you can vary your hand pressure to bring more weight to bear on one side, and then the other.
Perhaps you are being too analytical and just need to _do_ it! Like riding a bike - most of us can, but very many haven't the faintest idea how it stays up. Luckily one does not really need to know!


----------



## David C (21 Apr 2012)

Well, I've been doing it again, with very little sucess.

David


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Apr 2012)

David C":reud89tk said:


> Well, I've been doing it again, with very little sucess.
> 
> David



Maybe your plane sole is too flat?

***dives under bench***


----------



## Jacob (22 Apr 2012)

David C":2c46thwz said:


> Well, I've been doing it again, with very little sucess.
> 
> David


OK try this then. Ignore MrT's video - do a straight cut down the board with the middle of the plane in the normal way, except try to round it over with more pressure at the heel at the start, moving to pressure at the nose at the finish. Then repeat this but along the diagonal line joining the high points at each end of the board.
Can't get into the workshop or I'd try it out myself, I'm sure it would work!


----------



## bugbear (23 Apr 2012)

Jacob":3bdjhcr4 said:


> David C":3bdjhcr4 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I've been doing it again, with very little sucess.
> ...



But you don't have any straight blades to try with; all yours are cambered, so they'll OBVIOUSLY cut tapered shavings, in the way described so well by Mr C.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (23 Apr 2012)

bugbear":fj9uyanm said:


> ..
> But you don't have any straight blades to try with; all yours are cambered, ....


No they aren't. 

Another way to visualise the prob is to pencil in square across at each end - then join these up along the length with a straightedge. 
Then work down to the lines. 
If you want to see exactly how you are getting on you could pencil over the whole of the waste above the lines with a fat soft pencil.You can buy pencil lead in a block, which makes this easier. Then every stroke of the plane will show itself clearly.
If you do it properly you should be taking off the high points first and effectively contouring down to the low points - which roughly coincide with the valley joining the low corners.


----------



## bugbear (23 Apr 2012)

Jacob":1927zfak said:


> bugbear":1927zfak said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...






Jacob":1927zfak said:


> In fact I think people who plane with straight edges will probably find that if they look closely they are not as straight as they thought and they have been using a cambered blade all along - straight edges are difficult to achieve, but luckily they are also pointless!



So how many "pointless" blades do you have?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (23 Apr 2012)

bugbear":g069f1xv said:


> Jacob":g069f1xv said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":g069f1xv said:
> ...


Yawn.
He's following me about again! He never gives up does he? :roll:


----------



## bugbear (23 Apr 2012)

Jacob":310vf2ln said:


> Yawn.
> He's following me about again! He never gives up does he? :roll:



Caught self-contradicting AGAIN Jacob? It's almost as if you'll post anything counter to the current tenor of a thread just to be argumentative. 

Surely not... 

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (23 Apr 2012)

I can (and will) contradict myself as often as I like. 
I'm flattered that you follow everything I say so carefully, I'm sure it doesn't deserve it!
NB would you mind putting dates and references on any old quotes of mine so that I can remind myself of the context?


----------



## Jacob (23 Apr 2012)

Jacob":1g4irw93 said:


> bugbear":1g4irw93 said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...


Apologies for replying my own post but some other things occurred to me:
it was Angela (late of this parish) who described woodwork as being mainly about controlled removal of waste. 
Once you've identified the waste as above, by pencilling all over it down to the lines, it becomes easier to deal with. You aren't relying on mysterious properties of the plane or hard won skill to do the job. All you have to do is remove the waste before your eyes. 
Anything will do it, penknife, axe, adze, file, rasp, chisel, etc but some things will do it easier than others, in this case a plane. 
With it all marked up you can see what to attack, and you can see step by step the results.
Does this make sense? What I'm trying to say is that it isn't dependent on high level skills, like driving a golf ball, it's a lot simpler.
But if you believe it's semi mystical or all about precision engineering you will find it a lot harder.


----------



## Racers (23 Apr 2012)

Hi, Jacob

You haven't explained how to make a tapered shaving with a straight blade.

I remember when I first started woodworking trying to joint two edges with a straight blade and it took me ages, and they came out badly, so if you could explain again as none of you previous explanations have made sense to me.


I now use a cambered blade.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (23 Apr 2012)

Racers":1sx9q17q said:


> Hi, Jacob
> 
> You haven't explained how to make a tapered shaving with a straight blade.
> 
> ...


Varying pressure.


----------



## Racers (23 Apr 2012)

Well that dosn't work for me.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (23 Apr 2012)

If you think about it beginners have a problem making straight even shavings. They tend to come out in many shapes and sizes. If they can do it accidentally surely we can do it on purpose?
Too much thinking going on IMHO - just do it!


----------



## Mr T (23 Apr 2012)

Hi

After the discussions (arguements!) on this I've been checking out my planes and irons to check flatness, they're old records. To be on the safe side I borrowed a colleagues Clifton No.6 which has a very flat sole and is sharpened flat, not even rounded at the corners. I was able to take an even shaving down the middle and tapered ones either side without tilting the plane, just by moving it from side to side.

I can't explain how this works but must believe what I see. One of the great mysteries of our craft!!

Chris


----------



## Jacob (23 Apr 2012)

Magic :shock:


----------



## dunbarhamlin (24 Apr 2012)

I have been converted to using a cambered iron for truing an edge, but of the four(?) methods of using an uncambered iron to true an edge, I found uneven weighting the least effective except for finessing the last few minutes. Perhaps because I only have access to relatively inflexible modern plane bodies.

Holding the plane body true is the fastest way to get close, and with daily practice I expect "close" would fast become "close enough" particularly for joinery. 

The other two only work over discrete regions of similar untruth:

Using the projection of the iron to produce shallow rabbets: I found this the easiest to control and fairly quick.

Using the lateral adjuster is not convenient, since it requires that the offset be a simple fraction of waste wedge to be removed.

(Oh - forgot jigged of course - either shooting board or jointer fence)


----------



## bugbear (24 Apr 2012)

Since we're now discussing edge jointing techniques, I'll remind people of this thread:

hand-plane-issues-t51663.html

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2012)

bugbear":398g3wl7 said:


> Since we're now discussing edge jointing techniques, I'll remind people of this thread:
> 
> hand-plane-issues-t51663.html
> 
> BugBear


Very interesting BB. I know you are a fan of my stuff. 
Why are you reminding us of that thread in particular? A cambered blade _does_ help a lot, which doesn't mean we can't discuss how to use a straight edged blade as an alternative.
Basically most practicing woodworkers will make it work with whatever tools they have to hand and very few tasks are dependent on one tool or one set-up only.


----------



## bugbear (24 Apr 2012)

Jacob":24prr4nc said:


> bugbear":24prr4nc said:
> 
> 
> > Since we're now discussing edge jointing techniques, I'll remind people of this thread:
> ...



It was a wide ranging and detailed discussion of at least 3 different jointing techniques.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2012)

bugbear":66s04uu8 said:


> Jacob":66s04uu8 said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":66s04uu8 said:
> ...


Good glad to hear it. I thought I was being stalked, yet again!


----------



## Racers (24 Apr 2012)

Jacob! he's behind you :shock: :wink: 


Pete


----------



## custard (24 Apr 2012)

David C":1i7lhkvd said:


> I have never suggested that squaring an edge cannot be done with a straight blade, as I know plenty of you do this.
> 
> It would be useful to know *how*, as I could then explain it to others.
> 
> David



Possibilities,

1. Shooting board
2. Fence, ie Stanley 386 or the Veritas modern equivalent
3. Dedicated edging plane, such as these two from Veritas

http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.a ... 56084&ap=1


----------



## János (24 Apr 2012)

Hello,

This is an interesting thread. I use a no.7 Stanley try plane for long edges and large panels, and a long wooden try plane for really long stuff. 





For small pieces I use a no.5. Their blades have straight edges (as straight as I am able to sharpen them that way), wit the corners (the last 1~1,5 millimetres of the edge) "rounded" . I have had no problem with them, and I have never ever tried to flex/twist the body of the planes in use to get the required results. The "applied pressure" thing works quite well. One aspect behind the success of this method are the resiliency of wood and the non-linear character of the "specific cutting resistance" of wood fibres: thinner shavings are harder to cut, so even small variations in the distribution of the applied hand pressure might alter the effective shaving thickness/cutting depth across the width of the cutting blade.

I am a small person, about 168 cm tall, and 52 kg, It seems a little absurd to me, that I might be able to twist perceptibly a rigid cast iron handplane, like a no.5 or no.7, by the way.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2012)

Racers":2tom4bu0 said:


> Jacob! he's behind you :shock: :wink:
> 
> 
> Pete


 :lol: 
He is isn't he - the little weasel! 
Just when you think it's safe to come out there's a rustling in the undergrowth :roll:


----------



## bugbear (25 Apr 2012)

Jacob":auiimjug said:


> Racers":auiimjug said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob! he's behind you :shock: :wink:
> ...



Think of me as an on-line conscience, like Jiminy Cricket...

BugBear


----------



## ali27 (25 Apr 2012)

Jacob":3endn5pn said:


> Racers":3endn5pn said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob! he's behind you :shock: :wink:
> ...



Jacob, you should be doing woodworking. You are wasting too much time.

Ali


----------

