# shooting boards



## engineer one (29 Jul 2007)

these seem to be the latest must have accessory, so i have tried to make one too.

bits of mdf i had lying around plus a bit of cherry for the stop.





[/url]



[/img]

the base plate is screwed and glued, but the rest are screwed, whilst the lump of cherry is bashed in with my mallet, since it has a slight taper.

seems to work ok, but .

as you can see i have an LN no 9 mitre plane, which is bevel up in format.
1/ so how do you ensure that there is no break out at the rear where it hits the stop, ie the cherry/
2/ what sort of shavings do you get, or is it just a kind of sawdust.

3/ do you find that with hard wood, say oak, you need to give it a good push, or do i need to change the blade angle??

4/ in softwood i can get decent small shavings, and a good finish, but with the hardwood although the finish is fine, it is a bit difficult to get started.

one thing for sure i am getting it square vertically, but not quite as square as i hoped at the end.

anyway first time round seems quite decent.

paul :wink:


----------



## Steve Maskery (29 Jul 2007)

Paul,
You shouldn't get any breakout. My SB has an adjustable backing strip, which gets used up on each job, but ensures a clean cut every time. 

If you don't get on with your plane, can I have it please?

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Anonymous (29 Jul 2007)

What's that wierd plane about? I've never seen one like that before. Is the side handle attached or just left in the shot for no reason? Is this another bad case of catalogomania?
With a shooting board I'd use a jack because it's handy to hold with one hand whilst you hold the workpiece with the other. You can avoid breakout a bit by taking off the far corner first, or by putting in a bit of scrap of the same thickness. If the blade is cambered (as it should be) you get a square cut by tilting it as necessary.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## engineer one (29 Jul 2007)

what part of nfw don't you understand steve :lol: 

actually, i will persevere with it a little longer :roll: :twisted: 

since it was my first attempt, i have to check all the possibilities.
actually the no 6 seemed to work better, so i must try and improve my technique.

of course the advantage of the number 7 is that it is easier to hold it properly, whereas the number 6 is much more difficult to hold.

paul :wink:


----------



## mr (29 Jul 2007)

Paul where is your breakout? If its on the back of the cherry stop block does that matter? If it bothers you you could always take a chisel to the rear edge and chamfer it off. 
I haven't tried a plane as small as that on a shooting board  Ive only ever used the LV jack and a no 7, both have quite a bit of heft and it's quite easy to get them going. Not sure which of these I prefer. The 7 is easiest but possibly too easy. 
As for shavings or sawdust you should definitely be getting shavings. 

Why not as square as you hoped at the end ? Your finished result should be square all the way through if the board and its bits are all true etc. 

cheers Mike


----------



## engineer one (29 Jul 2007)

interesting and thought provoking as normal jacob,
since you are lying the plane on its side, why a cambered blade?

i understand the basics of cambered blades, but this seems a more complex idea. the plane is apparantly based on a stanley number 9 
presumable american and discontinued in 1943.

given that i have a dodgy pinkie finger, ie broken a couple of times, 
i find it easier to hold than a jack on its side.

mike, the break out is at the end of the wood i am cutting, not much, just a little. mainly it seems to be pushing the wood out a little rather than cutting cleanly. i think i might need to resharpen the blade at a more beneficial angle. kind of getting a mix between dust and small shavings.

actually is there a special way to cut end grain, in which direction?

as for the squareness, i will re-check in the morning and maybe massage that. think it is in the way in which the cherry stop is working.

thanks for the interest

paul :wink:


----------



## Philly (29 Jul 2007)

Paul
Your stop - it needs to project out into the path of the plane slightly. Then, when you use it for the first time the plane cuts the stop back to the optimum position. You should then have zero tear-out. The stop completely backs up the cut.
If you tilt your plane accidentally in use you need to re-do the stop. But as you have a #9...... :lol: 
As for shavings - they should be full, solid shavings. Take a deeper cut if you are only getting saw dust. And of course, a sharp iron makes all the difference in the world. But I don't have to mention that, do I? :wink: 
If your board isn't giving truly square cuts make shims from tape and add to the fence to ensure they are perfect. And obviously the lateral adjustment of the blade trues things vertically.
Hope this helps,
Philly


----------



## mr (29 Jul 2007)

engineer one":5bqdqcx2 said:


> i understand the basics of cambered blades, but this seems a more complex idea. the plane is apparantly based on a stanley number 9
> presumable american and discontinued in 1943.


No idea why the cambered blade. I have straight irons in all my planes and have no problems getting flat / straight edges. In fact I seem to recall Rob Cosman saying in his "rough to ready" video that the iron mitre plane should have a straight edge. I could be wrong though. Personally I would keep the iron straight edged you shouldn't have to be tilting a plane on a shooting board to get a straight edge but what do I know.  



engineer one":5bqdqcx2 said:


> mike, the break out is at the end of the wood i am cutting, not much, just a little. mainly it seems to be pushing the wood out a little rather than cutting cleanly.
> paul :wink:



I would have thought any breakout is a result of not having the workpiece supported sufficiently ie sticking out across the face of the stop block too far. Try drawing it back a little you're only trying to take off the minutest of shaving after all. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## engineer one (29 Jul 2007)

hi philly, thanks too,

as someone who once trained as an engineer, the bit about the stop sticking out confuses me, because particularly with the N0 7/9
the front is quite long, and surely is tilted, or are you talking about only a little bit :lol: 

the blade is sharp, but being a coward, i tried to use the smallest projection i could get away with, will resharpen, and try for a bigger cut to see. 

thought about tape and sticking plaster :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (29 Jul 2007)

Never used one of those planes, but they are reckoned to be the ultimate shooting board plane. Possible reasons why you are not getting very nice, thin shavings on oak and other hard woods is that you need to sharpen the blade and/or you have it set for too coarse a cut. Also your technique might be at fault. Slide the wood up till it is just touching the sole. Take a shaving. Slide it up till it is just touching the sole. Take a shaving. Carry on like that, slowly, until you get the knack. Also rub a bit of wax candle on the sole and side of the plane. You shouldn't need to mess around with blade honing angles - normal 30 degrees should be OK - just make sure it's really sharp and set for a very fine cut.

If all else fails, buy DC's shooting board DVD. He takes you through it step by step. But it's really not that difficult. Have another look at Alf's page.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## engineer one (29 Jul 2007)

thanks paul, that is useful too.

like everybody with a new toy, i expect it to be perfect from the get go, so :? 

but the other thing is that learning new techniques sometimes is difficult until you get all the i 's and t 's dotted and crossed. 

interestingly , the recommended angle for the blade as a bu is 25 degrees not 30, but in view of other comments, i may well try 30 instead.

i understand the concept, it is just i had hoped it would be a pretty immediate success and obviously it was not so i must look more carefully at the combination of circumstances to make it better.

paul :wink:


----------



## Steve Maskery (29 Jul 2007)

Just an extra - I keep a separate (Holtey) blade honed square specifically for shooting, rather than trying to get a square end with a curved blade. Cambers are great for shooting edges but not my preferred way of shooting ends.
S


----------



## Bainzy (29 Jul 2007)

Thanks for sharing, building a shooting board is a task I *really* need to get sorted soon at some point. I keep thinking about how I can make it perfectly adapted to what I'd do with one (building guitars) but then realise I'm probably trying to reinvent the wheel. :lol:


----------



## Benchwayze (29 Jul 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":14c1s0j2 said:


> What's that wierd plane about? I've never seen one like that before. Is the side handle attached or just left in the shot for no reason? Is this another bad case of catalogomania?
> With a shooting board I'd use a jack because it's handy to hold with one hand whilst you hold the workpiece with the other. You can avoid breakout a bit by taking off the far corner first, or by putting in a bit of scrap of the same thickness. If the blade is cambered (as it should be) you get a square cut by tilting it as necessary.
> 
> cheers
> Jacob


Hi Jacob,

Looks like a re-design of the Record 'T5 plane' They fetch good prices on eBay. It was a No. 5 with the addition of a side handle, as far as I know, to use for shooting end-grain. Never used one, but I would imagine the side handle nestles in the crook of your thumb and forefinger. 

There's a good pic of one on the 'Old Tools' site,
http://www.oldtools.co.uk/tools/record/ ... pl605.php#

I have an old No 5 I could soon adapt and a nice piece of lead wood for a handle. Now there's an idea! 


John


----------



## Smudger (29 Jul 2007)

The T5 was one of Record's few original planes: the T is for Technical, as in Technical School - the handle makes it easier for boys to use, apparently, and the bigger cheeks make using it on a shooting board more certain.

"On the shooting board the T5 settles down steadily and easily to its work, and pupils need but the slightest demonstration to master the operation... The T5 is used in so many schools and kindred establishments throughout the world that it may be considered the standard jack plane for this purpose."

CJ Hampton - Planecraft

I'm still trying to get into the old planes cupboard to find one!

If you want to convert an 05 there's a bloke on eBay selling replica side handles.


----------



## Paul Chapman (29 Jul 2007)

They also do what they call a "hot-dog" handle for that plane, which some say is better http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=9#

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Smudger (29 Jul 2007)

A number of the Records show up minus the handle, so replacements are good all round.


----------



## Anonymous (29 Jul 2007)

engineer one":9viirqw4 said:


> .
> 1/ so how do you ensure that there is no break out at the rear where it hits the stop, ie the cherry/
> 2/ what sort of shavings do you get, or is it just a kind of sawdust.
> 
> ...



1 Make the end of the fence lwvel with he plane guidepiece = no tearout (you ca raids the exit corner slightly)

2 Should get complete end shavings with the #9 - definitely not sawdust

3 No hard pushing reqired - you might be taking too thick a shaving. I found that regrinding the blade to 38 degrees made it cut a lot more nicely


----------



## Benchwayze (29 Jul 2007)

Bainzy":3qv1azmx said:


> Thanks for sharing, building a shooting board is a task I *really* need to get sorted soon at some point. I keep thinking about how I can make it perfectly adapted to what I'd do with one (building guitars) but then realise I'm probably trying to reinvent the wheel. :lol:



For your kind of work Bainzy, I suppose it would be a good thing to do. 
I cheat and use a Wood-trimming guillotine for squaring smallish stock. For wide boards I stick the work in the vice and plane end-grain square. 
When I am particularly lazy (tired), I use the Leigh-Jig and a 177e, for trimming up to 23.5 " end grain! 
But I have the excuse of old bones. (  )

John


----------



## Benchwayze (29 Jul 2007)

Smudger":371njmct said:


> If you want to convert an 05 there's a bloke on eBay selling replica side handles.



Thanks for the info Smudger. Yes, I believe you are right, about the 'schools' use, come to think of it. As for the repro-handles, I bet he doesn't make them out of lead-wood!
Cheers m'man.
John


----------



## mr (30 Jul 2007)

Benchwayze":1yjhu2gn said:


> Looks like a re-design of the Record 'T5 plane' They fetch good prices on eBay. It was a No. 5 with the addition of a side handle, as far as I know, to use for shooting end-grain. Never used one, but I would imagine the side handle nestles in the crook of your thumb and forefinger.
> 
> There's a good pic of one on the 'Old Tools' site,
> http://www.oldtools.co.uk/tools/record/ ... pl605.php#
> ...



Isn't it the LN version of the Stanley no 9 as seen here 
http://supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan2.htm#num9 
Paul's having the side handle rather than hotdog which is another option.


----------



## engineer one (30 Jul 2007)

shucks i did n't get a hotdog handle with mine, mind you have had it two years so i think that handle came later. :? 

i think i will re sharpen the blade at a higher angle.
and must re-surface the edges, so that the cherry is more 
behind the surface to be cut. 

i must be doing something right, because the break out is not too much
in some ways it is almost like a bruising which kind of bulges to make it more difficult to ensure that the edges are square cause they get in the way of the square.

still will try with another setting to get the proper shavings, although i am not sure what i expect, if they are only about a thou thick, then they will off a small piece, say 3/4 deep look rather like dust than shavings i guess.
if my camera was better i could show what i am getting and you might be able to offer better advice.

it is an interesting project though, and of course actually very useful way of using up scraps :lol: :twisted: 

paul :wink:


----------



## dunbarhamlin (30 Jul 2007)

Bainzy":3jxqxgrk said:


> Thanks for sharing, building a shooting board is a task I *really* need to get sorted soon at some point. I keep thinking about how I can make it perfectly adapted to what I'd do with one (building guitars) but then realise I'm probably trying to reinvent the wheel. :lol:



For jointing guitar plates it's equally common to work the other way around - shuting the plates together against a stationary plane.
The main downside with this approach is I find it a little more awkward to realign the plates for reshuting after test candling

I also find it worth truing at least one end of my ribs too (shuting board definitely good here) - makes it easier to get eveything square while bending and afterwards in prep for trimming the tail join (I don't use a wedge though - I mark up, clamp and shute the two together with a block to get a clean joint line)

Cheers
Steve


----------



## engineer one (30 Jul 2007)

not sure how easily you will see what's here, but this is what i am getting with the no 7 at this time in both hard and softwood. the finish is great, just not quite right,still will get there with a bit more fettling.





[/URL]




so is it blade angle, or depth of cut, or what??

paul :wink: [/img]


----------



## mr (30 Jul 2007)

engineer one":m73d1mry said:


> still will try with another setting to get the proper shavings, although i am not sure what i expect, if they are only about a thou thick, then they will off a small piece, say 3/4 deep look rather like dust than shavings i guess.
> paul :wink:



Definitely shavings rather than dust. These are from ash, with the No 7 on the shooting board. 






Cheers Mike


----------



## Anonymous (30 Jul 2007)

engineer one":29a2xqrh said:


> snip
> since you are lying the plane on its side, why a cambered blade?
> snip


Because it's a jack plane i.e. general purpose. You correct the camber when using a shooting board by tilting the blade a touch.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## devonwoody (30 Jul 2007)

Aren't shooting boards a jig really for only doing end grain?


----------



## Paul Chapman (30 Jul 2007)

mr":2hlcg2lw said:


> Definitely shavings rather than dust. These are from ash, with the No 7 on the shooting board.



Excellent picture, Mike. They are typical of the type of shavings I would expect to get if everything is working correctly.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## David C (30 Jul 2007)

The plane in original photo is a L-N No 9 mitre plane, used for precision work and apparantly piano making. Adjustable mouth, fine adjustment and significant weight.

Massive blade is bevel up, seated at 20 degrees.

Very good for shooting but also other precision planing jobs. 

Original Stanleys are scarce and expensive on collectors market.

David Charlesworth

PS the answers to most of Paul's questions are in my Book 2 pages 16-25.


----------



## Alf (30 Jul 2007)

Paul, you've heard how the best test of an edge is to try it on end grain softwood? It has to be on the money to "cut it" (ho ho). Well, don't take offence but looking at your pics I be inclined to say time to go back to the old honing medium...

Anyone desirous of further info on the T5 and #9, memory tells me there's quite a bit of discussion in the Hand Tools board archive.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (30 Jul 2007)

devonwoody":byufmtkt said:


> Aren't shooting boards a jig really for only doing end grain?


Really handy for along the grain too if your SB is long enough. Ideal for drawer sides frinstance.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## engineer one (30 Jul 2007)

wondered where you were alf :? 

david, sorry have not yet got your books, so  

anyway, like all things it is good to check whether you are going in the right direction.

the softwood is being cut, and leaves a decent surface on the end, it is just that it is more like sawdust than shavings when it comes off the plane,
will experiment more.

paul :wink:


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Jul 2007)

> Isn't it the LN version of the Stanley no 9 Paul's having the side handle rather than hotdog which is another option.



Yes mr. I see what you meant.
What I meant was the plnae in the picture had a side handle like the T5 and was probably a redesign. 

I appreciate the actual plane is different, but then I could see only the handle and a bit of the casting!

 
John


----------



## engineer one (30 Jul 2007)

benchwayze,
i read from the LN brochure with the plane.
"based upon the stanley number 9 discontinued in 1943.......

its boxy construction is designed specifically for a tool to be used on its side with or without a shooting board, to shoot length right angles and of course mitres. a second knob is provided and mounts on either the front left or right side to facilitate your grip. David Charlesworth has a good discussion on shooting with this tool in Furniture Making Techniques Vol 11.

box calls it Iron Miter Plane LN 9 (whoops :? )

anyway i will check it and the shooting board as well as re-sharpen the blade and hone it with my latest technique ( :? alf)

and see how we go. must check whether the tool is square all round, and then square up the wedged piece of cherry or the mdf it rests against to ensure that that is square too :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (30 Jul 2007)

ok back to the tormek this morning, changed the blade angle on the number 9 to 30 degrees, decent hone, and reset.

spent a fair amount of time ensuring that the blade was horizontal and flat across the mouth. some time spent adjusting the protrusion.

still getting a kind of dust from the softwood, but the end surface is pretty smooth, just a little bruised at the far edge. :? not exactly break out, just not a total clean cut. square however.

also tried on the maple to get things better.
square, and very smooth. but you do kind of have to take a run at it :roll: 
then you get shavings and an end view like this





[/url]





so it is improving, and another skill to my bow, just another million, plus all the experience to come next :roll: :? 

so next question having acquired a draw knife and checked my two sharpening books, leonard lee, and tln, they both recommend a kind of curved edge. what do they mean and how do we do it???????

paul :wink: [/img]


----------



## engineer one (30 Jul 2007)

there still seems to be a difficulty i can get a nice end without too much problem, and it is now properly square.
however, it seems to be either slight shavings(dust) and very easy, or
quite hard work, and thicker, about 1/2 thou shavings and more like hard work.

i did not expect removing end grain to be easy, but it is certainly not slicing through like my chisels :? :roll: 

maybe i had better increase the honing angle again :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (30 Jul 2007)

further thought, i can get decent paper thin shavings when i plane along and with the grain, so :? :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Chris Knight (30 Jul 2007)

Paul,
Check you don't have the mouth so tight that it is not clearing the shavings.


----------



## engineer one (30 Jul 2007)

interesting thought chris. :roll: 
but of course because it is lying on its side, you expect some kind of drop out anyway :? 

the adjustment seems rather narrow, but i will check.
paul :wink:


----------



## DaveL (30 Jul 2007)

engineer one":7z8pu44p said:


> i did not expect removing end grain to be easy, but it is certainly not slicing through like my chisels :? :roll:
> 
> maybe i had better increase the honing angle again :?


Paul,

You would normally use a low angle for end grain, increasing the angle will make the plane harder to push.


----------



## engineer one (30 Jul 2007)

oh **** dave, now i have to go the other way :lol: 

well i will appeal for other answers just to see what the preverbial concensus is :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Alf (31 Jul 2007)

Wot Dave sed, Paul - sorry. The ideal aim for blade bevel angles is really the lowest you can get away with without compromising the strength of the edge. I'm a bit concerned you're finding it such hard work - it should require some effort but once you get a rhythm going generally things move along okay. Grandmother egg related thing I'm sure, but have you waxed the side and sole of the plane?

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 Jul 2007)

I'd be inclined to go with the angle it is supplied with, 25 degrees - see the relevant LN website page http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=9 As the plane is designed for shooting board work, I would have thought LN had already given the matter some thought.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear (31 Jul 2007)

dunbarhamlin":3fv2pjmq said:


> For jointing guitar plates it's equally common to work the other way around - shuting the plates together against a stationary plane.
> The main downside with this approach is I find it a little more awkward to realign the plates for reshuting after test candling



That's the downside of "match jointing".

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (31 Jul 2007)

Alf":jhxk42tv said:


> Wot Dave sed, Paul - sorry. The ideal aim for blade bevel angles is really the lowest you can get away with without compromising the strength of the edge.



((Cough)) bevel down plane ((cough))

(edit) Ignore me. I checked, and the #9 is bevel up. OOps.

BugBear


----------



## dunbarhamlin (31 Jul 2007)

bugbear":ppluybv3 said:


> dunbarhamlin":ppluybv3 said:
> 
> 
> > The main downside with this approach is I find it a little more awkward to realign the plates for reshuting after test candling
> ...



Yep, though I do find it somewhat easier when returning the plates to the static bed of a normal shuting board.

But the big plus apart from complementary edge angles is that as highs and lows are matched on both plates they're much easier to pick up when candling. This allows an exceptional fit without the need for high cramping pressure during glue up - really handy if the outer edges aren't a nice straight edge, which is common with guitar/mandolin plates

Steve


----------



## engineer one (31 Jul 2007)

thanks dave l, sorry to doubt you  

i will go back and re bevel at 22.5 and see what that does, then i can always do a secondary bevel at 25 if it does not do what i think it should. :? 

alf, no i have not waxed, but it is not the running of the plane, it is the cutting action, so lets see what the angle change does. :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## mudman (31 Jul 2007)

engineer one":3lnlfm1h said:


> thanks dave l, sorry to doubt you
> 
> i will go back and re bevel at 22.5 and see what that does, then i can always do a secondary bevel at 25 if it does not do what i think it should. :?
> 
> ...



I remember planing a piece of timber once. Cutting well but I wondered if waxing the sole would make much difference. So I waxed the sole and went at the wood with the same gusto as I had before. The plane shot off at high speed throwing out a beautiful ticker-tape parade of savings as it went. To be stopped short by my arm that was hanging on for grim death and managing to wrench my shoulder.  

I think waxing does help. It may be that if your shooting board is a bit 'grabby', that the plane maybe juddering a bit and effecting the cutting action.


----------



## devonwoody (31 Jul 2007)

Much more profiling and there wont be any blade left.


----------



## bugbear (31 Jul 2007)

Paul Chapman":1cybc3xd said:


> Never used one of those planes, but they are reckoned to be the ultimate shooting board plane.



Of the commonly available and affordable(*) ones, yes.

But not the ultimate. There's some wondefully weird stuff out there, I'm glad to say  

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... hp?p=30750

For less money, I reckon Philly's square bodied, skew bladed Krenovian is pretty good priceerformance ratio

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... p?p=132469

BugBear

(*)relative term, I know.


----------



## engineer one (31 Jul 2007)

actually the interesting thought is that a lot of commentators and the millers fall plane talk about the blade being skewed. that is why some suggest the support board be mounted at an angle even if only 5-10 degrees.

that to me would make it much easier to slice the wood.
maybe that's the next project. :? 

after all the rest of the tuits

paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Kierstead (31 Jul 2007)

engineer one":2p32vkew said:


> actually the interesting thought is that a lot of commentators and the millers fall plane talk about the blade being skewed. that is why some suggest the support board be mounted at an angle even if only 5-10 degrees.



Tis not the same thing, though it can take a minute to wrap your head around it.


----------



## mr (31 Jul 2007)

Paul Kierstead":6afio6fp said:


> Tis not the same thing, though it can take a minute to wrap your head around it.



With a sloped or ramped plane support / run on a shooting board the "cut" is angled but the blade is still running in the same direction as the plane body or mass, not the same thing as a skewed mouthed plane. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 Jul 2007)

bugbear":2ik4ap30 said:


> Paul Chapman":2ik4ap30 said:
> 
> 
> > Never used one of those planes, but they are reckoned to be the ultimate shooting board plane.
> ...



Personally, I'm never really sure about the value (from a user perspective) of those very expensive, all-metal, combined planes and shooting boards. They only do what they do, so you are still going to have to make up your own boards for other shooting board requirements. They keep the collectors happy, though.....

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (31 Jul 2007)

Well yes. I've always managed with a jack on my SB. Sometimes had to make up a shooting board from scraps on site as the only way to plane a board edge/end in the absence of holding devices such as sawhorses and clamps etc. Easy to do - 2 bits of board, a batten for a stop and some nails.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Mirboo (31 Jul 2007)

When you're using a shooting board you want to aim for shavings like this.



 



This was done on a simple MDF mitre shooting board I made, using a No. 8 plane. I sometimes use my No. 8 on a shooting board because the weight helps the plane sail through the cut.

The wood in the picture above is Tasmanian Oak. The name Tasmanian Oak is used for three similar species of eucalypt hardwoods that are normally marketed collectively. It was originally used by early European timber workers who believed the eucalypts showed the same strength as English Oak. I don't know about English Oak but this stuff is not super hard. You'd probably call Tasmanian Oak moderately hard.

Obtaining shavings like this is much harder when planing soft wood but it is still what you are aiming for. You just need a really sharp blade.


----------



## Alf (31 Jul 2007)

bugbear":3r9w919s said:


> (edit) Ignore me.


S'okay, I was :wink:

Paul, you speak as someone who's yet to try wax on planes - I strongly urge you to do so asap, 'cos you is missing out.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (31 Jul 2007)

engineer one":zrpcmgx5 said:


> actually the interesting thought is that a lot of commentators and the millers fall plane talk about the blade being skewed. that is why some suggest the support board be mounted at an angle even if only 5-10 degrees.
> 
> that to me would make it much easier to slice the wood.
> maybe that's the next project. :?



A ramped board is easy to make, and easier(or cheaper) than getting hold of a skewed plane. Further, a ramped board distributes the wear over more of the blade.

However, the BIG downside is that a ramped board is limited in the width of workpiece it can manage.

If your work is inside that limit, it's a good approach.

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCoh ... /index.asp

BugBear


----------



## Smudger (31 Jul 2007)

That (even wearing across the width of the blade) is the main reason that I have heard for ramped boards. But surely there must be some effect on the cut, not as in a skewed blade, but in the way that taking a cut at a slight angle is easier, sometimes, than going parallel to the edge.

On planing end grain I have found that my Record 03 SS gives me a better cut than a block plane. But that may be because I don't know any better...


>edit< - it isn't an SS come to think of it...


----------



## Paul Kierstead (31 Jul 2007)

Smudger":10321i6z said:


> But surely there must be some effect on the cut, not as in a skewed blade, but in the way that taking a cut at a slight angle is easier, sometimes, than going parallel to the edge.



I think one advantage of a ramp is that your initial entry into the wood is less violent; you more gradually catch the full cut. This can definitely help keep the plane from "jumping" on entry, especially on very hard woods, dull blades, or too heavy a cut. Or all three 

When we do it by hand, though, we tend to make quite complex cutting motions like slices that cannot be replicated by a skewed plane or a ramped board.


----------



## MikeW (31 Jul 2007)

Some quickie random thoughts...

Wax and hand planes simply go together...us it.

Shooting boards can be as complicated or as simple as one desires. A couple of mine were built for longevity, most were simply ugly and expedient ones (same with bench hooks, but that's another topic).

A ramped board does skew the cut, just not as great a skew as one would get with a purpose built plane. But it does lower the effective cutting angle a tad.

The thing I think a ramped board used in conjunction with a regular bench plane (heavier is better in the plane department) is that one does not need a left/right skewed plane in order to have the effect on either side of the shoot board. Sometimes I have to use the left side.

It doesn't take much slant for the ramped board to have great effect. In fact, for slower controlled shavings, I think a ramped board with a plain bench plane is better than using a skew-bladed plane which has too great a skew angle (tends to want to lift the front of the plane).

Ok. Back to work...Mike


----------



## bugbear (31 Jul 2007)

Paul Kierstead":1j2bgdnx said:


> Smudger":1j2bgdnx said:
> 
> 
> > But surely there must be some effect on the cut, not as in a skewed blade, but in the way that taking a cut at a slight angle is easier, sometimes, than going parallel to the edge.
> ...



Yes. I believe this to be the primary advantage.

Secondary is that it reduces breakout on the back edge, by making the exit from the cut gradual in the same way as you describe for the entry. The fibres are supported by their uncut neighbours.

I believe that the geometrical effect of lowering the effective cutting angle is third by a long way.

BugBear


----------



## newt (31 Jul 2007)

Paul I think it is how sharp is the blade. I had a very similar issue that you have until I realised what I thought was sharp was in fact not sharp at all. After honing it has to take a full layer of hair of my arm with the blade at a reasonable angle ( hair grows back quite quick, but H&S warning must apply) I had no other way yet of assessing sharpness ( no arterial blood yet). Some can determine by just looking at the blade or feeling with their thumb, I cannot. I have also seen some work where sharpness is assessed by dropping the blade from a calibrated height into a round bar of plastic material, the weight of the iron is normalized in the results. The depth of the incision is then measured, to messy for me. As stated the real test is on the softest wood God makes, and the wax treatment does make a difference. One further point we see on the forum almost weekly different sharpening methods but I have yet to see any suggestion of a qualitative method that folks use to assess the actual sharpness, perhaps it is just feel, if it produces the results it must be sharp. Alf makes a very good point about the lowest angle you can get away with without losing the edge after a couple of strokes.


----------



## engineer one (31 Jul 2007)

thanks newt, good to have another perspective on it.

you are right about sharpening, there is no actual definition,
it is all subjective, only you the person can determine whether it is sharp enough to do what you want it to. which is why there are so many methods, and none are wrong, neither are they correct for everybody.
it is what works for you, and you find easy to do.

certainly i have found my chisels are able to cut decent shavings in end grain, so i can't see why the plane is not able to do the same. so i will go back to about 20 degrees and work back up from there. 

paul


----------



## bugbear (1 Aug 2007)

engineer one":2e9ao7vn said:


> certainly i have found my chisels are able to cut decent shavings in end grain, so i can't see why the plane is not able to do the same.



A chisel can cut at a lower effective angle lower than any plane, since a chisel can be used bevel up at zero degrees bedding, so the effective angle is the same as the bevel angle. Low effective angle is most desirable in cutting end grain.

Only a low angle spokshave (old woodie, or Lee Valley) can match this.
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx ... 50230&ap=1

BugBear


----------



## dunbarhamlin (1 Aug 2007)

bugbear":1ad7rd5s said:


> I believe that the geometrical effect of lowering the effective cutting angle is third by a long way.


I don't see that using a ramped board has _any_ effect on cutting angle. The blade edge is still being held perpendicular to the direction of cut. Like cutting a swathe diagonally across a board with the plane pointing in the direction of travel, as opposed to holding the plane parallel to the board edge for the same diagonal cut.

With thin boards (< 1/8") a a further advantage of a ramped board is that the cutting action helps hold the wood flat to the board surface, as should it lift this will introduce wind.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## newt (1 Aug 2007)

Paul, please keep us in the picture with the changes you make particularly when ribbon like shavings appear. One aspect that I do not think was mentioned is that, mouth size is not that important with end grain work (I stand to be corrected) as you are not trying to control long grain splitting, so you could be quite generous with the setting.


----------



## engineer one (1 Aug 2007)

newt, will do , but must finish the bookshelves first :roll: :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## bugbear (1 Aug 2007)

dunbarhamlin":1tdlzfzr said:


> bugbear":1tdlzfzr said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that the geometrical effect of lowering the effective cutting angle is third by a long way.
> ...



Quite right- sorry, typing quicker than thinking.

The other two effect are common to ramps and skewed blades, but only skewed blades lower the effective cutting angle. And (BTW) not by much unless the skew is quite extreme.

BugBear


----------



## newt (2 Aug 2007)

Ref pauls tearout. As has been said when the SB is new you take the first pass without anything on the SB and that takes a slice off of everything except the small area on the bottom of the sole where there is no blade, and we could assume the blade depth was say 4 thou. You then place your piece and the cut is fine no tearout, full support by the stop. Later when doing the same you have the depth of cut to say 2 thou, you then have 2 thou of the piece un - supported. You could as has been suggested use a backing piece each time and that does the job. I get around it by taking a couple of swipes with a shoulder plane and then every thing is back to normal. So if the depth of cut is less than the first pass there cannot be full support (I could be talking nonsense) is this what may be the case with Pauls problem. Apologies to those that know this and for my ramblings.


----------



## engineer one (2 Aug 2007)

interesting newt, that seems to be what others are saying.

however, there is a complication. i resharpened the blade last night back down to 20 degrees, and tried it i still get a decent finish, but not really shavings. however i do get shavings when planing along with the grain. :? 

re the point raised by chris earlier, although the mouth is adjustable i have opened it as much as possible, but still does not seem to be enough.

with a fine set, i get very fine shavings/dust, but when i increase the set, it becomes more difficult to start the cut, and i do not know whether that would improve if i waxed the sole, since it is the cutting action which is the problem, not the moving of the plane which does not stick in motion.

it is the beginning of the cut that is causing me the problems, once i get that sorted it will be plane sailing :lol: :twisted: 

i can live with the end finish which is smooth and shiny, just be happier if i was doing it the same way as everyone else :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## mr (2 Aug 2007)

Paul I don't mean to be doing the egg sucking thing if you see what I mean but your honing angle seems to be going up and down like the proverbial drawers. I think you might have more luck returning the iron to its original angle on the basis that it was shipped that way for a reason and then trying to get a usable result from it. Once you have done that then by all means tweak the honing angle if you think you can improve things. One of the keys to getting the result you want from my other life setting up large scale projection systems is that when results are not as expected change one thing at a time until the new result can be quantified. If you go changing all sorts of things at once you cant really work out what changes are having a positive effect. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## engineer one (2 Aug 2007)

you are right mike, that is why i went back to the shipped angle.

indeed i am only changing one thing at a time, but can't change me :twisted: 

interestingly i tried with my ln block plane, and got decent finish, but 
no real shavings though :? 

again, the mouth is open fully.

paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Kierstead (2 Aug 2007)

Really, assuming a sane angle, there are only 3 possible reasons (well, Ok, I am making this up as I go, so might be more):
1. Too slight of a cut
2. Not sharp enough.
3. Wood from hell. Some wood is a lot harder to get a endgrain shaving from then others. Some is pretty easy. Try with a hard dense wood.

Usually (3) would still be because of (2). And if you are really really sharp, even a very slight cut will give you a shaving. Basically, the odds are very very good that it is (2). Extremely good. Waaaaay out there good. Work on the sharpening. You can get a long grain shaving off a blade that you banged into concrete a few times, but end grain requires really really sharp.

Can you get an end-grain shaving "by hand" (i.e. sans shooting board), using a slicing motion with a block plane?


----------



## Alf (2 Aug 2007)

engineer one":2k605chy said:


> ...i do not know whether that would improve if i waxed the sole, since it is the cutting action which is the problem, not the moving of the plane which does not stick in motion.


Paul, you just made me shout a Bad Thing at the monitor :evil: - to paraphrase; WAX IT! You should be using a brisk to and fro motion - the easier the plane moves the better it moves into the cut and does the job before you've got time to go "oo, it's a little bit of work, this" :roll: ](*,) And I still have suspicions about your sharpening; remind me, what's your method?

Cheers, Alf


----------



## engineer one (2 Aug 2007)

alright alf i'll ttry again.
but recent experience says i am fine at getting it done for with the grain :? 

i'll try my old candle and see what that does, and give the blade another go. not sure whether to admit it, but the ln low angle block plane works very well with mdf :twisted: , and still cuts corners in real wood too.

since everybody said softwood was more difficult, that is what i am practising on, so :roll: when i get that done i'll move on to the real stuff :lol: 

thanks for the help though

and yes its a tormek, but i might have to add a waterstone clean up too :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## mr (2 Aug 2007)

Forgive my ignorance - with a Tormek do you change wheels to go through the grits? or is it a case of one size fits all and then hone on a strop or somesuch?

Nasty softwood is cheap and relatively easily available which is why I started with it. Having said that I would never suggest anyone actually attempt to learn or practice with it. I did / do but that's a needs must thing. It's disheartening and I don't believe it's that helpful - ie not a case of if I can drive round L'Arc de Triomphe I can drive anywhere. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## Paul Kierstead (2 Aug 2007)

engineer one":811b53vh said:


> since everybody said softwood was more difficult, that is what i am practising on, so :roll: when i get that done i'll move on to the real stuff :lol:



Just like most of us don't try an ornate Victorian secretary as first time project (hmm, that sounds kind of dirty), it might be easier to work your way up instead of trying for the hardest situation and working down.


----------



## engineer one (2 Aug 2007)

yes mike there is only one grinding wheel on the tormek, and you change the grit ability by using a grader, then you use the leather honing wheel with some compound topolish and hone. 

works for my other edge tools, including the No6 :? 

paul, i agree that it is better to start at the bottom of the slope, but what everybody said was that if you could do it with softwood, then hardwood was a breeze :roll: . so far though, i have only a piece of oak that is about 2inch square, so of course it is too big for the plane  

will reset the blade tonight, and ensure it is really sharp, then see what i can do with a candle on its sole too 8) 

paul :wink:


----------



## DaveL (2 Aug 2007)

engineer one":yabqmmp6 said:


> will reset the blade tonight, and ensure it is really sharp, then see what i can do with a candle on its sole too 8)


Paul,

Wax the side of the plane that is on the board, you need it to glide down the runway.


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Aug 2007)

engineer one":263jo70y said:


> alright alf i'll ttry again.
> but recent experience says i am fine at getting it done for with the grain :?



Getting shavings with the grain is largely irrelevant IMHO, Paul. You would be able to get shavings with the grain with a blunt blade. I'm with those who suggest that the problems you are having in getting only dust from end grain are down to a blade that isn't really sharp. Hone and polish the bevel and back until they look like a mirror and then try again. And plenty of wax on the sole and side of the plane.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## engineer one (3 Aug 2007)

ok so the question then is how does everyone determine what is sharp
for end grain as opposed to sharp for along the grain??

would like to know how we determine the difference.

paul :wink:


----------



## MikeW (3 Aug 2007)

Paul--there is no difference. Sharp is, well, sharp.

That said, I do sharpen some tools to a lesser extent. I don't take my bench chisels to the finest stone. For what I use the for it doesn't matter.

However, any edge tool that does a critical task--planes expected to produce a final or near final surface, paring and DT chisels, and, of course, shoot board planes--all receive the best edge I can muster at the moment.

But "how to tell"? Just purposeful sharpening. It's a skill that simply gets better over time. No different than so many things in life. Make things, sharpen, make some more things. All the while trying to do that which you know to do. It is a skill that builds--as long as it follows some sort of consistent effort.

I know people who have hardly made a single thing (a couple people who have not ever finished making smething) opting instead to understand everything there is about sharpening an edge tool, a noble pursuit if that is the goal. But that is not the goal, it is a rabbit hole that is sometimes difficult to extricate oneself from.

You have the knowledge. I.e., you know what the goal is for sharpening. You have the gear to accomplish sharpening. I suspect you have some sort of printed material (DC, Lee, TLN, Kirby et al) concerning sharpening. The rest is doing. Which takes making the edge tools dull.

My simple philosophy is this: Make things and sharpen the things used to make it. And keep on doing both.

That's part of my madness, anyway.

Take care, Mike


----------



## engineer one (3 Aug 2007)

aw shucks, mike i just love your downhome logic :lol: 

actually you are right, and in fact that is what i have started to do, MAKE things again. but having made the shooting board, i wanted to be able to use it and understand it.

so when the plane did not seem to cut the way i expected i got confused.
well that's not difficult but you know what i mean?

anyway i'll try again to ensure the blade is sharp enough and wax the side and the sole and see what that does.
ta mate

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (3 Aug 2007)

well back at the tormek, and a bit more, it is getting easier, but :? 

maple seems pretty easy, but the oak is more of a problem, but then i wonder whether it is actually too big so that doesn't help, it was lying around.

as you can i hope see with these rather dark midnight shots, the blade is quite mirror like, and i am getting some thou or so shavings, but even with the candle wax still not as easy as i would like.

those who say i should open the mouth more, i don't think there is any more room :? maybe i should grind some off :twisted: 





[/url]








so it is getting better but still not right, i wonder whether it is only about practice, or something else i am missing???

paul :wink: [/img]


----------



## JesseM (3 Aug 2007)

I know you have tried a bunch of different things, so please forgive if this is redundant 

When I have used a shooting board with with LN LA Jack I have noticed sometimes it likes to dig in at the beginning but doesn't have the heft to follow through on the cut and I end up with dust. The LN #8 has the heft and can follow through with ease thus I usually get shavings. Not sure of the heft of your mitre plane but I suspect that it has more to do with momentum than anything else. A few things are gonna affect this. The weight, the speed and the friction. If you have the weight and the speed you might wanna try and reduce the friction (use wax). Also you might wanna try a heavier plane just to see if it is the momentum.

But in the end if you getting a square, smooth face then I think the lack of shavings are irrelevant. It just indicates that you not digging in deep enough to produce said shaving. More like scraping instead of planing.


----------



## bugbear (3 Aug 2007)

On the back breakout (and support thereof) front, I would recommend knifing the line you're working to (either with a knife, or cutting gauge). You need a line to work to, and if it's a true "cut" it helps the break out (same as when sawing shoulders).

Alternatively, it's worth chamfering the back edge (with a single chisel cut).

Addendum; since you're just startin' to mess with a shooting board, start with the easiest woods - probably a cheap mahogany like sapele. Very hard woods are difficult to cut at all, and very soft woods are difficult to cut cleanly (this is the same advice as for dovetails)

BugBear


----------



## newt (3 Aug 2007)

Paul, you have probably tried this but I cannot be fagged to go back through the posts, but have you tried on a piece say just 10mm thick?


----------



## mr (3 Aug 2007)

Incidentally
Chris Schwarz is on the case 
http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,7f0fe013-8433-4255-991f-61e50e256d6d.aspx

theres a beaten to the punch again thing  
Cheers Mike


----------



## Paul Kierstead (3 Aug 2007)

mr":3bq9uu2n said:


> Incidentally
> Chris Schwarz is on the case
> http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,7f0fe013-8433-4255-991f-61e50e256d6d.aspx
> 
> ...



Yeah, but he gets the shearing cut thing mucked up too. Like I said earlier, it can be a bit to wrap your head around it. Overall, good article, though I firmly believe everyone should make their own.


----------



## mr (3 Aug 2007)

Paul Kierstead":2p651gdx said:


> Yeah, but he gets the shearing cut thing mucked up too. Like I said earlier, it can be a bit to wrap your head around it. Overall, good article, though I firmly believe everyone should make their own.



So I saw re the shearing thing, I was a bit surprised that someone was actually selling them.  
EDIT 
If you have a look the comments to that article Chris maintains that the ramp skews the cut if only minutely. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## ByronBlack (3 Aug 2007)

$95 - thats one expensive hand-tool Jig! Mines made out of MDF and a bit of mahogany for the fence - it's been fine for over a year without any need for adjustments. I use either a block or a no.7 - I do find though that I really have to concentrate on getting as sharp an edge as possible (with the blades) otherwise I tend to just 'crash' into the cut with hardwoods.


----------



## engineer one (3 Aug 2007)

well days down the learning path, we seem to slowly be getting there.

still not happy, but after a couple of days of experimenting, and returning to a shallow angle. re made it at 20 degrees, then made a second bevel so i now have a an angle of 22.5 degrees, which with the bed give me about 42.5 degrees, not far off that on philly's new woodie.

i experimented with adding a secondary bevel by using a (shock) oilstone just a small second bevel, it seemed to work better, still no big shavings but some slightly bigger ones.

so i moved again, back to the tormek, and reshaped a second bevel of 22.5 degrees, polished properly front and back. moved the adjustment bar, and wacked it back in. found a piece of 4x1 oak and it worked pretty well, shavings not too big, but more shaving like. also with the maple, more shavings like. 

on softwood still dust, but the end finish is still smooth and pretty neat.

so i still have a problem with the first cut, and actually entering the wood, for the first time, thereafter it becomes somewhat easier, but only 1 thou shavings., so they really look like dust. somewhat like byron is talking about i guess :? 

so the other thing is how wide should the mouth be, i cannot open it more than 1 mm because that is as far as the adjustable part will move.

thanks again 8) 

paul :wink:


----------



## ByronBlack (3 Aug 2007)

Paul, for what it's worth, when edge shooting pine and such like, all I get is a very dusty thin chipping/shaving. I get good results with sapele, and small chippings off harder stuff like beech and rosewood. I've not worried about trying to get a full-length shaving, as with no time at all even with dusty shavings I get a nice square edge.


----------



## engineer one (3 Aug 2007)

i actually agree byron, but like all things you want to do your best, and when every body else says oh well, i get these results, then when you don't you wonder what you are doing wrong.

i am as i said, happy with the finish now it is square, and smooth, but would be nice to know whether i am still not doing it right. :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## Philly (4 Aug 2007)

Paul
I think you are taking too fine a shaving - 1 thou is a very, very fine shaving. On end grain I prefer to take a chunkier shaving - it holds together better.
Oh, and don't forget. The shaving is the part you through in the bin - the important thing is the square edge you produce... :wink: 
Philly


----------



## DaveL (4 Aug 2007)

Philly":1gvmhcj8 said:


> Oh, and don't forget. The shaving is the part you through in the bin -


So this big collection of shavings is worthless? :shock: :roll: :wink:


----------



## engineer one (4 Aug 2007)

the problem is i can't produce a thicker shaving, so for the moment until i get a chance to practice elsewhere, i will live with it

so who wants a pile of sawdust :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (4 Aug 2007)

Is it shavings you want to make - or a piece of woodwork? 
If the latter I'd say stop worrying about the shavings, just ignore them :lol: 

cheers
Jacob


----------



## engineer one (4 Aug 2007)

well i am still trying to improve my technique, so i reverted to using my no6 on its side. even though the blade has been well used since my last sharpening of it, it still cut quite well.

however, it is less comfortable for me than the No9, so i checked the throat opening, and wonder whether a tight throat is the problem???

the throat on the No6 is about 2mm, whilst that on the No 9 is closer to 1mm so is there a feeling that the throat should be wider or narrower??

and even with the No6, when trying to get a larger shaving, the start is more like smashing into a wall than slicing through a piece of wood. now i guess part could be because it is awkward for me to push, but realistically could the throat gap have anything to do with it??

also how important is it that the end stop should be fixed hard, or is a push fit just bashed in a little more with the mallet enough??


course if i have to increase the mouth gap on the No9, means machining off a lump of metal of the adjustable bit :? 
paul


----------



## MikeW (4 Aug 2007)

The mouth is adjustable on the #9...open it way up.

Also, and I don't mean to be pedantic or treat you that way, but the bevel on #9 goes up...

Take care, Mike


----------



## engineer one (4 Aug 2007)

ok tried again, different plane, and this time i know i will sound like a collector, but  

this time my LN 62, which is also a bevel up with an adjustable mouth.

this time however, the mouth is able to be adjusted to a greater gap than on the No 9, and it cuts as sweet as a nut. so it must be the mouth opening on the No 9. which means either i have to grind down the present one to get a decent gap, or having emailed LN, will see what they suggest too.

want to sort the No 9, cause with my hands, it is easier to use, doesn't rub my mashed up little finger so much, and is easier to set up a rythym. 8) 

so not cured, but beginning to understand, and at least it shows i can produce some sharp blades :twisted: :roll: :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (4 Aug 2007)

mike thanks for not teaching me to suck the eggs.
i have taken the throat plate off, and adjusted the screw as far as i can,
still can't get a very big gap.
will photograph and post .

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (4 Aug 2007)

mike here are the photos i have just taken.

shows the throat plate off the base, as well as the bevel up :lol: 

more importantly it shows that with the specific screw in place, i cannot open the throat plate any more.

either i need a longer screw, or a shorter throat plate :? 

the throat plate is out as far as i can get it.





[/url]














hope this makes it clearer that i am not so stupid as to not have tried all the tricks with the throat opening and it is still too long for the hole i need.

at least some of my training has paid off :roll: 

paul :wink: [/img]


----------



## MikeW (4 Aug 2007)

Hmm. Though the pics are a little blurry, it appears to me the adjustable mouth plate is not milled to allow as wide a mouth as mine was capable of. I would recommend emailing LN with a link to these pictures and inquire from them.

I would probably just file the pipper open carefully so as to maintain a square opening.

That said, the opening you have should be capable of producing nice shavings. Which I suspect is a frustrating statement.

Take care, Mike


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (4 Aug 2007)

Paul

Are you only having trouble getting savings on the pine end grain, or is this replicated on other wood types? Soft pine can be impossible to get shavings on.

A few notes.

I think that regrinding the bevel angle to 20 degrees is inappropriate. Firstly it is unrealistic since a bevel this low will not last. Secondly it is possible to take shavings on soft wood end grain with a high cutting angle. I interchangeably use a HNT Gordon Trying plane (60 degrees), LV LA Jack (37 degrees), and a LV LA Smoother (37 degrees).

Here is a HNT Gorgon on medium soft Mahogany:











I consider that the key elements to successful shooting are a sharp blade and a fine cut. The size of the mouth is irrelevant.

The ramped shooting board that I built some years ago was based on the ramped board of Michael Connor, which was introduced to me by Terry Gordon (of HNT Gordon). Up until then I was using a flat shooting board. Both types work but I find the ramped board is (slightly) smoother in the cut. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## MikeW (4 Aug 2007)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ...I consider that the key elements to successful shooting are a sharp blade and a fine cut. *The size of the mouth is irrelevant*...


I would qualify this to say the mouth can be set too finely to take a decent end-grain shaving...which doesn't appear the case with Paul.

Take care, Mike


----------



## engineer one (4 Aug 2007)

thanks again guys, nice to hear from actual toolmakers and users :? 

when i first started with the No 9 as it was i got very fine shavings which basically became dust when i knocked the plane to get them out. this was on softwood, so i then tried some thinnish maple, white, and that got me 
thin shavings with a bit of body, but not a full length one.

i then tried the LV No 6, and got a better shaving :? 

read the instructions from No9, and it says that the bevelis 20 degrees, the blade 25, so i tried 20 degrees because others have said maybe below 40 degrees is the way to go. now i have it at about 22.5 so haing 42.5.

so in this mode i get slightly better shavings, but not a full length one.

then i used the 62 and got some really decent shavings, but again not full length, so i checked, and although i am prepared to accept that another 2-2.5 degrees might make a difference to the sharpness, what i noticed with the other two planes was that their mouth was bigger, so i concluded that this might well be provide a causitive aaction because obviously with a narrow mouth, you would tend to break the shavings quite quickly.

so i will try to take some better pictures of the blade and throat plate, and then take mike's advice and send them to TLN and see what they say.

i will also try to put a spacer, or maybe shorten the screw slightly to see what that does.or at least try a work around.

the other thing i have found is there does seem to be something in the way in which you approach the planing. it may well be easier to plane from one direction than the other. "end grain direction?" for instance i can quite easily cut a piece of 4x1 oak, but 13/4 x 1 3/4 is more difficult ????

we will crack this eventually maybe i need a bloody great jarra plane to do it with, but then i have a No 9 anchor :lol: 

i think mike is right, the throat plate is too long, but i do get as i have said a decent finish on the end of the wood, and it is now square :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## ByronBlack (4 Aug 2007)

Paul":b85llp9k said:


> but i do get as i have said a decent finish on the end of the wood, and it is now square



Seems like it's working? Are shavings that important? Not having a dig here paul, I just think that sometimes we can over-think things sometimes, I know I personally do - well too much for my own liking really 

Of course, if you're really unhappy with your LN No.9 I could ease your burden by kindly taking it of your hands :twisted:


----------



## Paul Chapman (4 Aug 2007)

engineer one":7o9kvlve said:


> send them to TLN and see what they say.



Hi Paul,

You've probably already thought of this, but I suggest that you also ask TLN what size the mouth should be when it's opened as far as it will go. It will then be a simple matter to measure yours and see if the mouth is a problem. 

If you wait until Tuesday when that stuff I've sent you should arrive, I'm sure that will answer a lot of your questions :wink: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## engineer one (5 Aug 2007)

thanks all, and no the No 9 is not going to be slung into the big world of cadgers :lol: 

having checked everything it is certain that it is almost impossible to increase the size of the opening without grinding off some of the front of the throat plate. i had hoped that i could washer it, but there is an upstand where the adjusting screw goes, and this as much as anything else limits the movement.
tre boring.

i will measure and send details to TLN and see what they say.

byron i just want it to be slightly easier so i am hoping that it is not just my technique that needs improving :? 

i await with interest paul :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (5 Aug 2007)

Derek wrote: 


> ...I consider that the key elements to successful shooting are a sharp blade and a fine cut. The size of the mouth is irrelevant...



Mike clarified:


> I would qualify this to say the mouth can be set too finely to take a decent end-grain shaving...which doesn't appear the case with Paul.



Yes, I agree completely. My first thought is that users believe that they need as small a mouth as possible for end grain. I meant to say that this is not needed and a large mouth is going to produce the same shaving as a small mouth. What is important is a fine blade projection. However, _too small a mouth _will prevent shavings passing. This, or the wood itself, is a likely cause of the current situation.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## engineer one (5 Aug 2007)

derek, thanks again, i am certain that the mouth cannot open enough to allow me to gain the advantage of a full shaving. i don't mind them being broken i would just like them to be what others suggest they could be.

after careful measuring of the throat plate, and its attendant mounting points i cannot open the mouth of the throat to a greater distance than between 1 mm and 1/16 of an inch, which is about half what i think it needs if the experience with the LN 62 is anything to go by. it gives me better cuttings(shavings) and the mouth is about 2mm open. i can also get a deeper opening with that it is just a pipper to use since i cannot hold it properly.

byron, sorry to seem to dismiss your comments but after review, let me provide you with my thought. i want to combine hand skills with the sensible use of machinery. too much dependence at this time on hand work means i'll never get things finished, so i try to combine learning certain hand skills with machinery so that i can produce a number of things relatively quickly.

i have been lucky enough to learn recently to hand plane rough boards for face and edge, so i wanted to be able to clean up end grain, and to that end a shooting board looked like a good thing, actually as jacob suggested i thought it might also help with some edge work.

so although the shooting board is ok, and works quite well, i need now to make the plane i bought (albiet some time ago) to work properly there. but that is for personal satisfaction as much as producing things.

of course the strangest thing is i have not had this problem with my 60 1/2 
and i use that on mdf too :? problem is of course the blade it too narrow for much of the work on my board.

so having started back, i want to make things, but when making a jig to ease my work, i want it to work properly, or i need to know why it does not. :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## JesseM (5 Aug 2007)

Have you drawn a square line on the face you are squaring to see if it is getting square? I was thinking that it may be hitting the first bit and bouncing out of the cut. Think of a slightly rounded face on one end. You mentioned trying some pretty thick boards. This would make the above more likely to happen. It would feel like the plane is not even making contact on the wood.

Also I have found with my LN BUJ that you can make incremental depths adjustments by tightening the lever cap. You may try this with the LN 9 to see if it affects the cut. Use your judgment here, I am thinking on the order of 1/4 to 1/2 turns.


----------



## Martin Cash (5 Aug 2007)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Paul
> 
> Are you only having trouble getting savings on the pine end grain, or is this replicated on other wood types? Soft pine can be impossible to get shavings on.
> 
> ...



Derek's picture of the Michael Connor design shows one more advantage of the ramped shooting board.

This is that the work is exposed to more of the blade's width as the plane passes it. For longer pieces this means spreading the cut over more of the blade.
Conventional shooting boards tend to wear the left hand side of the blade or the blade's centre or both.
It's a good design, copied by many.
Regards
MC


----------



## David C (5 Aug 2007)

Paul,

I use this plane a lot and it is wonderful.

I suspect that the trouble you are having with the no 9 is most likely to be a sharpening issue, unless you have a defective blade, which is always possible.

I would hone and polish a secondary bevel at no less than 30 degrees, I use 33 or 35 degrees according to the hardness of the wood, as medium hardwood up to rosewood & cocobolo etc are the timbers most used here. Low honing angles do not hold up well in A2 steel, they may hold up better in carbon steel.

It is virtually impossible to load a blade in bevel up planes without blunting the edge on the blade supporting slope before you have even started, as one is obliged to ground the sharp end before the top of the blade. Therefore I place a thin sheet of card on the support slope, to provide a cushion for the edge. This card is withdrawn though the mouth once the blade is flat on the slope.

Mitre planes are for precision work. The mouth needs to be no wider than the thickest shaving you are passing through it. I would be very surprised if you could take an end grain shaving of more than 6 thousandths of an inch. One to two thou" would be more usual. There is absolutely no reason to set a mouth opening in excess of 0.3mm (12 thou"), the thickness of an average business card, ever! (on this kind of plane)

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## engineer one (5 Aug 2007)

thanks DC i wondered whether there were more than two schools of thought.

it is just interesting that with the 62 i seem to get a cleaner cut with the wider mouth :? 

i have emailed TLN to see whether my throat plate is to the right dimensions, but i will re-sharpen the blade, and try your cardboard trick

thanks all for the generosity of time 

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (5 Aug 2007)

just another comment from an amateur.

all this talk about sloping shooting boards, well frankly guys you seem to be talking rubbish for the most part. most of the time we tend to end grain timber about 2 inches wide, so it the angular displacement is almost imperceptible, and frankly is not likely to make too much difference to the wear rate. unless the taper at the front end is really high, then the amount of shift along the blade is less than 1/8th of an inch i would guess.

i can see the slicing motion having start up value, but other wise until i try one i cannot see that it makes too much difference. :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

well i re-sharpened the No 9 blade again last night, and then reset it using the Charlesworth trick of a thin piece of card to save the blade when installing it.

angle is now 27.5 degrees on the blade.

put it back and it works more cleanly, and i get a decent smooth edge that is square both vertically and horizontally, but still not a very thick one.

more importantly it is not as smooth as the LN 62 used on its side.
on neither have i used wax i just wanted to see whether the motion was any different.

so my conclusion is that the throat opening is important no matter how far the blade protrudes

paul :wink:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Aug 2007)

> so my conclusion is that the throat opening is important no matter how far the blade protrudes


Hi Paul

Here is a link to a post of mine on WoodCentral some time ago in which I demonstrated the absence of difference between a large vs small mouth on end grain. Of course this is different from your situation where the issue is a small verses too small mouth.

http://woodcentral.com.ldh0138.uslec.net/cgi-bin/archives_handtools.pl?read=68098

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

thanks derek,. that seems to be borne out by my experience at this short time. the difference between the two mouth openings is about 1mm but it really makes a difference on all the woods. 

i get thin shavings with the 62,but it translates more easily into dust on the No9, and since both blades are sharp the only other difference is the mouth.

so to helpmy poor hand i want to sort the mouth on the No9 because it is so comfortable.

thanks again for the continued and non anal responces :roll: 
paul :wink:


----------



## AHoman (6 Aug 2007)

engineer one":2dnkyryv said:


> most of the time we tend to end grain timber about 2 inches wide, so it the angular displacement is almost imperceptible, and frankly is not likely to make too much difference to the wear rate.



Hi,
I've used both ramped and flat shooting boards and have found the ramped one to be nicer to use (with a LN 62 BTW). I'm not sure about the claims of wear on the blade, either, but I can relate that for small work, one can use these for long grain work (edges), and in this case the ramp does make a difference. Give it a try and judge for yourself!
-Andy


----------



## Paul Kierstead (6 Aug 2007)

engineer one":22hhm6hl said:


> i get thin shavings with the 62,but it translates more easily into dust on the No9, and since both blades are sharp the only other difference is the mouth.



Make the mouth on the 62 the same size as it is on the 9 and see if there is any difference in usage of the 62.


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

paul, thanks for that thought, have just tried. with the mouth closed up really tight on the 62 i am seeing a similar, but not the same effect as with the 9.

most of the cutting seems to produce dust not shavings which is a pita, but that's life. maybe TLN will respond in the next day or so.

shame i can't try the blade from the 62 in the 9 it is too short.  

will see also about fixing the end stop more effectively, but can't really see that having any impact on the cutting action as long as it is stopping the planed wood from moving.
 :roll: 
paul :wink:


----------



## newt (6 Aug 2007)

Paul although this is becoming a long thread I think it is great that everyone is joining in to solve the problem. And think of all the folk out there that have learnt from this thread, a good example of why this forum is so good. Keep at it, you will succeed.


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

newt, you are right, it is also nice that basically it has stayed a good humoured thread with the desire to discover the real reasons.

i am no expert, that's why i asked the questions, and one of the important things is that when i finally sorted out setting a normal plane, in particular my no 6,i have been able to plane in the conventional way reasonably well, both flat and square.

i foolishly therefore thought that i could make a shooting board pretty easily, and get it working. 

to find that the plane i had bought, albiet some time ago, did not work as i expected after all the fettling was disappointing to say the least. and then to find that another plane not exactly designed for the job works more effectively is a little confusing, not to mention painful.  

so i have learnt. and am still learning. i cannot get big shavings, but i can at least now make the end square in both directions with a decent finish.

i have also learnt that there is a preferred way to plane, one way across the end grain is easier than the other.

of course the problem with that may well be that that grain is not in line with the face and edges that you had originally sorted out :? but then i guess at that time, since your wood should be square on all four sides, it should not make too much difference.

all in all though being technical, i am surprised it has raised so much interest and information for which i am truly grateful. 8) 

paul :wink:


----------



## bugbear (6 Aug 2007)

engineer one":ii8q0c1l said:


> to find that the plane i had bought, albiet some time ago, did not work as i expected after all the fettling was disappointing to say the least. and then to find that another plane not exactly designed for the job works more effectively is a little confusing, not to mention painful.



I can't speak for the LN #62, but a _very_ similar plane, the Lee Valley low angle jack is most certainly intended for shooting board use.

BugBear


----------



## newt (6 Aug 2007)

Paul I assume the sole is flat on the no 9 particularly around the mouth.


----------



## Paul Kierstead (6 Aug 2007)

engineer one":2c40bmej said:


> paul, thanks for that thought, have just tried. with the mouth closed up really tight on the 62 i am seeing a similar, but not the same effect as with the 9.



I just checked my #9. Opened fully, the mouth is 1.6 mm. I keep it considerably under 1mm normally, no problem; that is more then enough to let a shaving through. 1mm would be a gaping mouth.

When you say "really tight", how tight to you mean? Put the mouth on the 62 the same as it is on the #9 (not tighter) and try it. I am confident you will not find any significant difference between that and with it wider open.

I would ask if you are using it bevel up  but it wouldn't even fit, I think.


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

frankly paul since i was once an engineer apparantly, i did check the measurements carefully. i actually made the mouth on the 62 narrow a little than on the 9, and it does impact. it is more difficult to produce a decent shaving.

where i find it most noticeable, is with a piece of square oak about 1.5 inches by 1.5 with the 62 at any setting it is easier than the 9 to remove sufficient material to give the appearance of a shaving. it also starts cutting more effectively.

obviously i am still doing something wrong, but don't yet know what  

remember i still get a decent kind of shiny surface on the end grain, and it is square in the two additional dimensions. but what i do not really get is shavings, rather i get dust. and with the 9, it is more difficult to start the cut.

since my piece of cherry as the end stop is moving around a bit more than i would like i will screw it down tonight rather than use the taper, and see whether that has any more impact on things.

paul :wink:


----------



## MikeW (6 Aug 2007)

Paul--I just had a thought. (Uh oh the crowd gasps...)

You have a Tormek iirc. Yes? If so, grind the #9 blade more than you think you really ought to on the coarse grade.

Without changing a thing, regrade the stone to fine. Grind again. 

Use even and firm pressure for these grindings, but not hard pressure.

_*Do not strop or hone the blade.*_

Straight from the Tormek grind wheels, put the blade into the #9 and try it again.

Any difference?

Take care, Mike


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

ok mike now you have peaked my interest. 8) :twisted: 

at what angle should i sharpen, and why do you think this might help??

so far the latest sharpening with honing and polishing has been the best at 27.5 degrees, but still the starting is the difficult piece, and i can't see why what you suggest is going to help.

hope i am not being more thick than normal :? :lol: especially since i have yet to resharpen the 62 blade since i did it ages ago and have face and edge planed about 12 pieces of oak with it. :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## MikeW (6 Aug 2007)

It is to eliminate the power/handstropping or hand honing on a stone variable.

Any angle you desire, really. fwiw, I never sharpened mine with less than a 30 degree bevel.

The bevel angle used really doesn't matter as regards the reults. You can get good shavings from a 60 degree BD plane ala Gordon, a 45 degree BD Stanley/LN/LV etc.

The only thing the lower angle is good for to me is when the plane is used off a shooting board on large end grain surfaces where the entire blade comes into play. (As in end-grain butcher blocks.)

So the fuller reason, the point behind removing the stropping/honing variable? Because it eliminates the issue of dubbing the edge. The reason for a longer grinding session is to ensure that the lower wear bevel is completely removed. It doesn't matter if you don't know what that is--it'll be explained in due course.

For now, it's just the Tormek as it will not introduce any dubbing.

And besides, the Tormek alone will provide a good enough edge for testing purposes. It is just that it will not be as refined as it should be for daily use. But if the shavings are more to your satisfaction straight off the Tormek, it means the issue lies with the refinement of the edge, not the creation of the bevel itself.

Take care, Mike


----------



## Wiley Horne (6 Aug 2007)

Hi Paul,

You have indeed fostered another great thread, as so many of yours are! Now to the point.....

The LN62 and the LN9 were both designed for end grain planing. However, the 62 is bedded at 12 degrees; the 9 at 20 degrees. This is a considerable difference. If the blades are each honed at anywhere near the same angle, the 62 will be cutting at a distinctly lower angle, which makes a considerable difference in the force applied in end grain planing. Also, if the sharpening is less than terrific, the 9 will be affected more than the 62, if it is attacking at a higher effective cutting angle. 

This seems more likely to account for the differences between the two planes than the difference in mouth opening, each of which is huge for your application.

Wiley


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

how about that two more completely different viewpoints :? 

mike as usual a good clear explanation. that makes a lot of sense.
this last time all i used was the tormek, but with honing and polishing so 

will try that idea.

wiley that opens a whole new avenue, since everybody seems to have a different view on the total angle of the blade in relation to the wood.

consider, if the 62 works better on the square lump, then surely the included angle on the 9 should be so low to get the same effect, but of course then you have a bevel strength problem :? 

first i will try mike's idea.

however surely if some say that you can produce say a 2 or 4 thou shaving, the mouth needs to be open more than enough to let that through without breaking off???

paul :wink:


----------



## Wiley Horne (6 Aug 2007)

Paul,

I completely agree with Mike's approach, which gets not only to sharpening, but to bevel geometry as well. And I agree one can shave end grain with a variety of angles--provided the sharpening and blade geometry is right. You're on the right track at this point.

Wiley


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (6 Aug 2007)

engineer one":1tkhyocb said:


> where i find it most noticeable, is with a piece of square oak about 1.5 inches by 1.5



I am the only one to think this a bit thick for doing on a shooting board? I'd just knife this and square the end with my block plane while it was held in a vice.


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

phil, interesting thought, my only comment from my position is that
surely the essence of a shooting board is that it produces square ends, and they are more difficult in a vice.

but also i guess i wonder why there should be any limit above the width of the plane blade to what wood you work with.
:roll: 
paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

just got a reply from LN, and not sure whether it helps

"Hi Paul,

We can't change out the mouth piece as they are made and matched to
each 
plane. You can chamfer the front of the mouth for a slightly wider
slot. 
Also, check to make certain that the back of the blade is flat all the 
way to the edge of the sharpened end. If there is any bevel on the back

of the blade it will reduce the cut.

I hope this helps, please let me know how you make out.

Best regards,

Mike Leonard"

anyway at least i got a decent and quick reply.

paul :wink:


----------



## MikeW (6 Aug 2007)

Good Surname or what ?":1zt42ws3 said:


> engineer one":1zt42ws3 said:
> 
> 
> > where i find it most noticeable, is with a piece of square oak about 1.5 inches by 1.5
> ...


Ha--that's what I get by not reading the entirety of the thread since my early posts...Good catch...

Nearly 2" square stock is a bit of a bite. It would not surprise me, Paul, if the stock is slipping a tad as the plane is bashing into it. That would lessen what is being shaved.

If I were needing to use a shooting board on thick stock I would ise a #7 or #8. Really. In all likelihood I would use my miter jack because I have one. But I have done such thick stock in the vise by keeping it about 2" above the height of the bench, sandwiched between two offcuts, usually Pine or Poplar. And then still used a Jack plane.

I apologize for not reading more carefully before allowing my fingers to type...  

Take care, Mike


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

ok so at the end of the lesson we are getting to the fact that what the largest wood we should think of planing on a shooting board would be not more than 1inch thick??

i must say i was not expecting cutting the square to be easy, however since i was getting the same effect on thinner sections i thought to try it.

obviously the diverse woods are differently hard to plane, but i have tried 
14mmthick maple which is about 40 mm wide, and as i have said a lump of 4x1 oak, as well as the square. i mean surely it would be nice to plane up table and chair legs on a shooting block???

so you weren't completely wrong mike :lol: :roll: 

i was just trying the square to see the effect.

paul :wink:


----------



## MikeW (6 Aug 2007)

Oh, no worries--but I should have read through since my last posts before spouting off.

It's entirely doable using a shooting board. Think of it this way, one issue is stock holding--it doesn't matter what the plane is nor why the stuff is being planed. The better the stuff is held firm against movement or deflection, the better able the plane can accomplish the desired result.

Too, one needs a sharp iron to do most anything of worth. So I don't fear that I was fully inappropriate in the suggestions.

The bigger the end-grain stock, the more the mass of the plane comes into play. So too the physical force of ramming the plane into the wood--which comes back to stock holding.

Adding a bit of sandpaper against the fence if you haven't already is a good start to holding the larger stock against movement.

But the best solution once one reaches the limits of plane mass and stock size on a shooting board is to simply use different means to secure the stock. That helps to allow a plane of smaller size to effectively plane the surface of the larger stock.

Take care, Mike


----------



## David C (6 Aug 2007)

I suggest that shooting hardwood over 7/8" thick, will become difficult if not impossible.

This will doubtless not be entirely true so I look forward to the experience of others if they can tell us how thick they can go?

Thick stuff in general, is easily planed with sharp low angle block plane or any well tuned bench plane, in the vice.

Shooting comes into its own for thin and small stuff where it is difficult to balance a regular plane. That's my experience and I'm sticking to it #;-)#

David Charlesworth


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

thanks mike and david, nice to get proper considered comments :roll: 

one does wonder though why so many propose using a shooting board if such a thin stock is all it can take :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (6 Aug 2007)

I would agree that once you get to about 1" you have probably reached the limit of what is comfortable to plane on a conventional shooting board. However, there are variables, including the type of wood and the plane in use. As the size of the wood and its hardness increases, the more a heavier plane becomes important. Once you have mastered basic shooting board work, Paul, it will become self-evident whether a particular piece is best shot on the board or by another method.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

oh no now i have to get a shot gun :twisted: :roll: 
and i thought the slope stayed more sane than that :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## MikeW (6 Aug 2007)

engineer one":3qhjklmc said:


> oh no now i have to get a shot gun :twisted: :roll:
> and i thought the slope stayed more sane than that :lol:


 :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Now that is a healthy bit of laughing it off!

And I see if I had read enough of the thread, Mr. C's comment might have clued me in to read further.

On the plus side, this is more forum reading/writing than I have done for a long time. And even though I didn't do a dilligent enough job of it, it was great.

So as Wiley mentioned...thanks for the thread, Paul!

Take care, Mike
who now has to remain in the shop all night...


----------



## engineer one (6 Aug 2007)

so lets see if i got this right, i screw up, and something simple doesn't work,
and you guys are happy i asked. :roll: 

well if only every thing were so simple :twisted: 

mike tried your trick, still not sure but i am getting nice shavings from the maple, but not continuous ones. :? 

still it is slightly thicker. 

of course the real problem then is remembering which way to wind the adjuster, and then i need to properly support the wood i am working on,
will work on that tomorrow.

thanks all for the input, i have learnt lots, and so it would seem have some of you too. =D> \/ 

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (7 Aug 2007)

ok, back to the tormek, and cleaned up the bevel as suggested by mike w.
having tried it is seems to work better, so i went back and honed and polished the new angle.

that means moving the adjuster plate slightly.

anyway back in the plane, and back to the board.

now the major admission could it have been that only holding the wood to be planed by hand causing some of the problem too?????

so i have put some spacers on the other side of the workbench, and now find it easier to hold the wood to the end stop.

am now getting decent thickness shavings from both the maple and the oak. somehow the oak got me a thin but almost full length shaving, 
on the maple only smaller shavings, not full length.

oak is 4x1. maple is 14mmx40 mm white maple.

now not sure the problem is solved, but the solution is nearer.

thanks for all the input, i have certainly learnt more than i thought possible from the kindness of you guys, and the experience from the pros within the gathering. have to say in personal experience, in other trades and businesses it is rare for experts to share their knowledge without making you feel useless and stupid. i think this thread has shown that we can all learn even the supposedly simple things, and there is always another angle to all problems.

now back to the bookshelves, and then the coffee table :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## AHoman (7 Aug 2007)

engineer one":21h9iizm said:


> somehow the oak got me a thin but almost full length shaving,
> on the maple only smaller shavings, not full length.



Paul,
Very nice thread -- this was fun to read. FWIW I've found that some maple will give full length shavings on the shooting board, some pieces of maple will not. (I'm using a #62, not a #9). Living here in a very maple-rich region I can confirm that maple varies quite a bit in workability, so your results with it (compared to the oak) do not surprise me.
Cheers,
Andy


----------



## Alf (7 Aug 2007)

engineer one":3mihoc3q said:


> one does wonder though why so many propose using a shooting board if such a thin stock is all it can take :?


Ah, well that's sort of looking at it backwards. It isn't so much that you use a shooting board for everything except that which is too thick, but rather that you turn to the shooting board to deal with that which is too thin. Naturally there's a sort of no-man's land where you could either use one or not, but it depends on what degree of accuracy you want, type of wood etc. F'rinstance, in response to DC's query - I have shot stuff over 1" but it was neither easy or something I'd want to repeat in anything harder than the soggy stuff I happened to be using at the time. 

And after all that, have you used any wax yet? 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Philly (7 Aug 2007)

Paul
Forgive me, I've kinda lost track.
So have you solved your "problem"? And what was it?
Philly


----------



## bugbear (7 Aug 2007)

engineer one":a79afcmt said:


> one does wonder though why so many propose using a shooting board if such a thin stock is all it can take :?
> 
> paul :wink:



Because thin (1/4" - 3/4") stock is used a hell of a lot in woodwork in general, and cabinet making in particular  

BTW, You probably could shoot 2" timber IF you had Philly's skewed plane. The BANG as the plane hits the wood is greatly lessened by a skewed (i.e. gradual) contact.

It's still a hell of a big cut though.

BugBear


----------



## engineer one (7 Aug 2007)

thnaks philly for the pithy comment ,
at least i hope it was that rather than taking the pith :twisted: 

not completely solved, but much better than when i started.

problem not proper cutting, partially solved by finally getting a sharp edge on the no9 with a 30 degree bevel.
also supporting the wood better at its extremities(painful :roll: )

not trying to cut too large a section.
:lol: 
paul :wink: 
ps alf waxed as well 8)


----------



## JesseM (7 Aug 2007)

I used my shooting board to put 10 degree angles on the legs of a saw bench I made which has the legs splayed out. Approximately 1.5" SYP. It was tough and I had to do it 8 times, but not so hard that I wouldn't do it again. I was actually kinda pleased with the results. Some breakout, SYP is so nasty to work with sometimes I didn't really care. Used my LN #8.

I also routinely square up 5/4 cherry, maple. The 5/4 bubinga proved to be too hard though and I could not quite get finished.


----------



## Philly (7 Aug 2007)

Paul
Me? Take the pith...... :lol: 
No, just glad you're getting it sorted. A lot of things just need the knack - as well as having the tool set up vaguely right.
Best regards
Philly


----------



## engineer one (7 Aug 2007)

must have been all those oranges then 8) 

ta mate, just goes to show you shouldn't assume anything :twisted: :roll: 

paul :wink: 

now back to the bookshelves


----------



## promhandicam (8 Aug 2007)

Just wanted to say thanks for sticking with this thread Paul. Reading through it from beginning to end has been enlightening with the wealth of experience offered by the various contributors.

All the best, 

Steve


----------



## engineer one (8 Aug 2007)

steve, it ain't over yet, the fat lady has not sung yet.

one thing you cannot complain about is that i don't stick to my point even if it makes me look dumb :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Philly (8 Aug 2007)

engineer one":1okql9j7 said:


> ta mate, just goes to show you shouldn't assume anything :twisted: :roll:
> 
> paul :wink:



Damn right! Assume nothing is as it "should be"  
Best regards
Philly


----------



## mr (8 Aug 2007)

engineer one":2trptpu9 said:


> one thing you cannot complain about is that i don't stick to my point even if it makes me look dumb :roll:
> 
> paul :wink:



A man after my own heart  I'll even do it in public. 
Cheers Mike


----------



## engineer one (8 Aug 2007)

blimey mike please no flashing :roll: :twisted: 

paul :wink: 

knowledge is power, since i have so much how come i can't produce electricity


----------



## Paul Chapman (10 Aug 2007)

Paul,

You said in your bookshelf thread that your shooting board problems have been finally solved. So what was the solution - was it the sharpening :? :? Don't keep us in suspense.......

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## engineer one (10 Aug 2007)

shucks thought you had missed it :lol: 

actually i am still working to a proper solution, some of it is that i was certainly trying to plane wood too thick. 

in particular the square lumps.

secondly sharpening was correctly identified as a problem, but not the only one, the other problems which i will address are fixing the end stop rather than having it as a sliding fixture, and finally holding and holding down the strips that i need to hold.

next is to organise my practice which is slowly coming along.

update later. 

thanks paul for everything
8) 
paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (11 Aug 2007)

paul you asked for an actual update,

today i have firmly fixed rather than wedged the end stop,

and made the following shavings in a wierdly shaped piece of oak. not this time too thick.

decent shavings, now i understand more it seems easier.

so it was worth getting to the end.





[/url]







you can just about see the candle wax on the sole and face of the number 9. now it does what i had hoped it would. :? 8) 

thanks for all your help 

not perfect but definately getting there, so soon another, better board :roll: 

paul :wink: 
[/img]


----------



## Paul Chapman (11 Aug 2007)

=D> =D> =D> =D>


----------



## woodbloke (11 Aug 2007)

Paul the Engineer  - If I could chip in my 2 Euro's worth here, it looks to me from the pics that you're getting there. I haven't been closely following this thread so don't know all the ramifications of what's been happening or no, but would make a couple of observations based on the pic evidence:
The plane appears to have been taking off a thicker shaving than I would normally expect it to do and as a consequence it has munched off some bits of the end stop at some time. With a tool like the LN No9 there's little chance of it rocking as there is so much metal in contact with the wood, but it might be worth re-appraising how the plane is held so that the pressure is 'down and forward' rather than 'down and sideways' if you follow, difficult to explain, easier to do.
Apologies if this has covered any old ground or muddied up any progress you've made....going to go away now and have *another* good sulk  'cos I haven't got a LN No9 as well :lol: - Rob


----------



## engineer one (11 Aug 2007)

now that's a back handed compliment to a very subtle gloat :lol: 

i think.

actually rob, the end stop is a little misleading, and may have been the cause of more problems than i expected before i screwed it down.
the mess at the edge was due to me cleaning it up with a chisel to give it a kind of under cut at the bottom edge. i think because i had moved in the wedge, it was not vertical, and may well have been causing some of the problems.

as for the latest shavings i must agree with you , but am happy that i can produce them since much of the earlier stuff was dust. i need to set things to be somewhere between the two.

next step may well be to try and check out mr charlesworths writings and dvd's to see whether i can make things both better and easier.
:? 
thanks again

paul :wink:


----------



## JesseM (12 Aug 2007)

I happened to be working on a little box today and making use of the shooting board. I decided to snap a few pics I made with the LN LAJ.






And a close up of the oak shavings. This is a 1/2" board which probably accounts for the length of the shavings. But they are so thin I could probably blow on them and they would fall apart.


----------



## engineer one (12 Aug 2007)

caw, nice one jesse, i can do that now :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------

