# Plane Making



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

Fellow Galoots, I need some expertise here.

I've been reading a few articles on making your own wooden planes, and I really want to try this as I need to make a jointing plane and can't seem to find an affordable old record or stanley - and I just want to be able to use a tool that i've made with my very own digits.

I've decided to use purpleheart as the body of the plane (mostly for the looks, but also the hardness of it) but would like a contrasting sole, what is the hardest wood availble to us at the moment (UK) and how often does a wooden plane needed flattening bearing in mind I would be using it quite often to edge and joint boards ?

Also, I was thinking of making the plane 22" long, is there any justification for making it any longer/shorter for the purposes of jointing?

One last question, just out of curiosity, is it possible to make a wooden BU jointer? Or is there any inherent engineering problems with this?


----------



## Scrit (18 Nov 2005)

A couple of hard wods you might want to try are European hornbeam, which some of the German plane makers use and the other (if it is still available) is lignum vitae (is it in CITES III?) which has the advantage of being self-lubricating. I have a couple of ECE Emmerich "woodies" with lignum soles and they do glide well. 

Scrit


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

Scrit - i've just been reading up on lignum, it does seem to the best choice, just got to hunt some down now ;-) 

Thanks for your mail, i'll send a reply shortly!


----------



## Chris Knight (18 Nov 2005)

Byron,
I saw some LV in Timberline on Monday - http://www.exotichardwoods.co.uk/


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

This is weird, I was just looking at the site only a few mins before I saw your post ;-)


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

So, I have the dimensions and wood choice sorted:

Length: 21"
Width: 2-7/8"
Height: 3" (at its heighest point)
Blade: 2-3/8" Hock A2

Sole: Rosewood
Body: Hardrock Maple
Sides: Probably Hornbeam from the generous Mr. Scrit. 

Its going to be 21" simply because of the rosewood that I have isn't long-enough to make a 24" which was my first idea, but I think 21" should be fine. I've chosen hardrock maple because I found a slab of it in the back of the workshop and is very heavy and solid - should look nice stained aswell. And cost is the prime factor here, even the Hock blade is making think of using an old Record blade - need to think about that.

I'm not sure which angle to set the blade at, I was thinking of making it slightly steeper because I'll be jointing difficult woods and aswell as the run-of-the mill stuff, can anyone recommened a good compromise on which angle to use?


----------



## Scrit (18 Nov 2005)

47.5 degrees? That's what Norris infills were generally set at (or around) I believe.

Scrit


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

Is that still using the standard angle on the blade?


----------



## Shady (18 Nov 2005)

Just some observations on bedding angle: you talked about recommended angles and why not a 'bevel up' pattern. Be aware that I actually knocked up a bevel up prototype for interest about a year ago. I was interested to see if the better 'support' profile (ie more support right up to the tip of the blade) would reduce chatter. Well it might do, but the resultant angle I had to cut the bed at made the mouth way too fragile - I wouldn't bother trying a bevel up woodie again - you'd be pushed almost by default to some sort of transitional design, I expect.

If you really do face significant amounts of difficult wood, try a blade attack angle of 50 degrees - 'York Pitch' - but be aware that it does make it all a little harder work. On a nice heavy jointer, this shouldn't be too much of a problem. Work out your bedding angle from your preferred 'included angle' on a sharpened blade. HTH - let's see the wip posts!


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

Thanks for the insight regarding the bevel up design - now you come to mention it I do remember reading about problems with the old stanley BU's and cracked/chiped mouths, so I guess it stands to reason that a wooden isn't going to be up to much.

You mention about the weight of the plane, and i've been thinking about this, considering the woody is going to be a fair bit lighter than an iron counter-part, would there be an adverse effects from inpregnating some lead in balanced area's of the body to add some weight to it?


----------



## Scrit (18 Nov 2005)

The Norris irons are bevel down, but their substantial thickness and the thickness of the lever cap makes then pretty inflexible, that, together with a solid frog makes them almost completely chatterless - like a good woodie. The intermediate angle between common and York pitch is quite a good compromise, I feel.

Scrit


----------



## Scrit (18 Nov 2005)

Actually I doubt that you need the extra weight. Wooden planes seem to "glide" much better than metal ones, IMO. Certainly the two Emmerich planes I have seem OK without the extra weight.

Scrit


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

Cheers for that scrit - i'll leave the lead alone ;-)


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

I just had a quick thought - will I need a chipbreaker or does the wedge perform that function well enough?


----------



## Shady (18 Nov 2005)

I'd be inclined (ha ha!) to agree with Scrit re weighting: make it without, try it and see. If, subsequently, you really want more weight, drill a forstner hole in each end, fill with lead shot in epoxy or wax binder, then seal with some nice 'decorative' end caps in contrasting wood. The beauty of woodies is that you can make it, play with it and then make an improved version on 2 consecutive weekends, all for the cost of the wood. Don't agonise too much - just make one and see what you think..

(edit - cross posting!) Forget the chip breaker initially, if you go for a York pitch - makes it less complex, and the steeper attack angle makes one less relevant, given the technicalities of chip formation/breakage/leverage.


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

Shady - i'm glad you said that (about the chip-breaker) as that is one less thing to spend on!

I'm aiming to make this plane for under £40 if I can and the hock blade seems to be taking up almost all of that, although I've noticed that Ray Iles make blades for just £28. Although I do have a spare 2" Record blade, do you think that would be a good (and free) option compared to a new blade from Ray Iles or Hock ?


----------



## Shady (18 Nov 2005)

It's up to you mate: funnily enough, I used a record spare in the bevel up experiment. I've said elsewhere - and this is relevant to your jointer - that my all time favourite blade (and I have all the usual suspects - Hock, L-N, L-V, cryo A2, non-cryo A2, Victor, HNT Gordon, some antiques, etc, etc) is my Ron Hock standard O2 blade in my heavily tuned Stanley No 7. It seems to hold its edge for quite ludicrous amounts of time. Not fashionably thick, not fashionably exotic, but just a really, really, nice good plane blade. Easy to shrpen, and cuts beautifully. If cost's an issue, use the record. If not, try a Hock for the hell of it.


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

If I go with the record - to enable me to build and use the plane quicker, is there any issues when retro-fitting a hock blade? I'm concered that if I did that I would have problems with the blade being thicker/thinner and not sitting right in the mouth - or are the standard hock blades of similar thickness to the record?


----------



## Shady (18 Nov 2005)

From memory - but you'll have to check, his 'special for woodies' blades are considerably thicker. However, his standard blades (like my jointer's) are pretty much the same - and there's no reaso why you couldn't use one of them. You'd need to check on specifics. You could always joint off some of the bottom to widen the mouth for a thicker blade, but your problem then is likely to be space between your crosspin and/or wedge and the bed if the newer blade is spectacularly thicker. Again, my honest response at that point would be, make one to suit the blade you've got: if you like it, make another to suit the thicker blade in due course... It's easy to agonise too much - you end up with 'paralysis through analysis', instead of actually making things... Good luck!


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

shady - you've convinced me, i'm going to build this bad-boy around the record blade, if its pants and doesn't turn out too well i've wasted virtually no money and as you say can build another around a hock blade.

I'm going to start this on the weekend and will post WIP pictures as I go ;-)


----------



## Shady (18 Nov 2005)

Sounds good -go for it - what basic design are you using? 'Krenov style', or something more akin to HNT Gordon/Knight planes?


----------



## Philly (18 Nov 2005)

BB
Sorry-been away today and missed this. If it's not too late take a glimpse at this.
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... 06&start=0
I made a plane from Paduak and MDF. Works just fine (although I dont recommend you use mdf :roll: )
David Finck's book "Making and Mastering Wood Planes" is superb reading-worth picking up for the mine of information.
As to blade angle-50 to 55 degrees is great for hardwood, expecially the pretty (read awkward) ones.
Hope this helps
Philly


----------



## ByronBlack (18 Nov 2005)

Shady, as for style i'm going to go for something a little like this:






But with some extra contouring and maybe a little modification of the shaping.

Philly - I was looking at your site today funnily enough and was partly inspired by your mdf-plane, i really like the shape of it, and will probably incorporate some of the styling in my own project!


----------



## Frank D. (18 Nov 2005)

There are alternatives to Lignum vitae, like hornbeam, bubinga, yellowheart, bloodwood, snakewood, ...most tropical hardwoods that aren't too brittle will last a very long time, a lifetime unless you use the plane every day. Over here a piece of lignum vitae about 16" by 5" by 10" costs about 250 pounds. But just because they sell it doesn't mean they should...it's almost extinct.


----------



## Javier (19 Nov 2005)

ByronBlack":7qncuba6 said:


> I'm not sure which angle to set the blade at, I was thinking of making it slightly steeper because I'll be jointing difficult woods and aswell as the run-of-the mill stuff, can anyone recommened a good compromise on which angle to use?


Since you won't be using the jointer as a smoother you might want to avoid
the steeper bed angles. It'll make the plane harder to push and dull the blade
quicker.


----------



## Anonymous (19 Nov 2005)

a..


----------



## ByronBlack (19 Nov 2005)

Peter - thank you for your indepth perspective on plane making, much appreciated.

I think i've made the decision to to dispense with the cap-iron(chipbreaker) for this project, although the blade will be a standard 2" record and not a hock (yet).

However I disagree with your views on the finger-jointed sole. Aesthetics play a part in how we use and relate to our tools, I think it shows that care and thought has gone into how the plane has been made and will be used. I find nothing offensive about ECE's planes, and i'm sure there are thousands who like the dual-axis finger joint, I for one do, it just shows a higher level of complexity, thought and engineering.

Sure, it may have only taken you an hour and a half to make a plane, but time isn't everything. I personaly don't just want something that is functional, I want it to be beautiful as well, this is why companies like Lie-Nielsen can charge so much for their tools - because they look good - and perform well!

I'm going to put a contrasting sole on my plane because I think it will look good and is a harder wood than the body which seems sensible. I find your 'soles are a bad idea' argument strange as you go on to say that you have only worn 1 in 27 years, and that you see no problem with gluing on unstable wood, doesn't seem convincing that is a bad idea. Surely it should be 'Soles aren't always required' rather than just a bad idea - as there is no evidence to suggest that.


----------



## Anonymous (19 Nov 2005)

b...


----------



## Chris Knight (19 Nov 2005)

Byron,
Just a comment on your choice of iron. A regular record iron is very thin and the cap iron is provided inter alia, to stabilise it. Whilst a wooden bed will help reduce vibration, I suspect you may still be disappointed in the results.

I have never made a plane and am not speaking from personal experience so caveat emptor!


----------



## Alf (19 Nov 2005)

waterhead37":1faiw6dn said:


> Just a comment on your choice of iron. A regular record iron is very thin and the cap iron is provided inter alia, to stabilise it. Whilst a wooden bed will help reduce vibration, I suspect you may still be disappointed in the results.
> 
> I have never made a plane and am not speaking from personal experience so caveat emptor!


I have, and you will. Get a decent iron; that's the most important bit. All these short, thick irons for bevel-up planes just yell "handmade wooden planes" to me...

You might also want to think about a rear handle too. Gripping the body of a long plane like a jointer isn't like cupping your hands round a smoother. The standard Western wooden planes didn't have handles for looks.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Shady (19 Nov 2005)

Sorry - line crashed again - still not fully set up in the 'new house'.

Some interesting comments. I bow to Peter on Hock's 'O1/O2' designation- I knew it was oil hardened, anyway!

Alf's point about thickness and cap iron is a very good one, which I'd forgotten with various other distractions this year. it might make you reconsider on the blade - my fault for missing it...

Soles: on balance, personally, I agree with Peter on these, but hell, you make what you like - the Clarke and Williams argument about moisture and glue lines is 'probably' not worth worrying about, to be honest - nobody with Knight woodies seems to end up screaming about the problems his glue lines cause. 

My observation would be that if this is your first self made woodie, I'd apply the 'KISS' principal. Even James Krenov - a lot of whose advice falls in the rather unhelpful "How do you make a rocking horse? Simple, Just remove all the bits that don't look like a horse!" school of instruction, assuming more skill than you have, makes the point that you'll need to make 2 or 3 before you're really pleased with one. 

My other point is that the classic Fink/Krenov designs you pictured may look inelegant scaled to a 22" jointer. Have a look at the Ron Knight Jointer here - a lovely example of 'less is more':

http://www.knight-toolworks.com/graphics/jointer.jpg

Given Alf's functionality related point, and your mention of budget importance, I'd personally plan to make it out of some nice stable, cheap and perfectly hard enough Beech, with a Hock woodie specific blade. That will then give you ideas for the 'improved' version, which can re-use the blade assembly... Ahh, descisions!


----------



## ByronBlack (19 Nov 2005)

wow, this thread definitly seems to have caught some peoples imagination, which for me is great, as i'm getting a lot of good information.

Peter, I would love to argue your points more fully, but I bow to your superior knowledge and experience, and will take away what you say very carefully. I agree with you in one respect about it being odd to have very expensive tropical wood atttached when its probably not a nessicity, but I have to ask myself - how vain am I? I want to put on a sole because of the elegance of the contrast, but your's and others idea's of keeping it simple means I should re-think, atleast for a few minutes 

With regards to talking and not making, I think for a new builder like myself, its important to look at all the aspects and theory/practice behind the making of a wooden plane, going into it blind with no real idea or information is both a waste of time and wood. (Besides, i'm starting to make it today ;-)

Shady - I already have the wood so there is no cost factor in that (including the lovely rosewood ear-marked for the sole) If I did buy one of the hock blades, would that still need a chipbreaker or is suitabley thick enough not to warrant one?

Alf - I've already thought about a rear handle, the designs I was looking at didnt have one but that was only 17" with mine being in excess of 21" I realised that its going to be quite difficult to use without.

You mention the thick BU blades - this is probably a stupid question, but can these be used bevel down? and if so, would a veritas blade be a good choice, or should I really just stick to the hock?

Waterhead - Thanks for mentioning that, when I took the cap-iron of the blade this morning, I did think it may be to thin, you've confirmed my suspicions.


----------



## Shady (19 Nov 2005)

Byron - thick blades will be perfectly happy BU or BD (with appropriate grind, of course), and they are indeed thick enough to 'go' without a breaker.

If you've got the wood - good luck, and go for it!


----------



## Javier (19 Nov 2005)

Steve Knight dips the laminated plane in oil to further stabilize it. I just r
eceived one of his pocket planes with Lignum Vitae sole. Made very thin 
shavings right out of the box.The blade is a quarter inch thick and has no
chipbreaker..


----------



## Alf (19 Nov 2005)

ByronBlack":3uik4sge said:


> You mention the thick BU blades - this is probably a stupid question, but can these be used bevel down? and if so, would a veritas blade be a good choice, or should I really just stick to the hock?


Well unless they only use Australian steel in the bevel-up blades, it shouldn't know the difference... :wink: Hock, Veritas or L-N, whatever you fancy. Much of a muchness I should think. I've had good results with handless chisels in the past. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ByronBlack (19 Nov 2005)

Javier, thanks for posting the picture, do you know what oil that plane is dipped in?

Can anyone recommend a good retailer of the hock blades?


----------



## Javier (19 Nov 2005)

ByronBlack":1dqv94ww said:


> Javier, thanks for posting the picture, do you know what oil that plane is dipped in?
> 
> Can anyone recommend a good retailer of the hock blades?



Sorry, don't know what oil he used, but here's the link

http://showcase.netins.net/web/iabonsai/knight/building1.html


----------



## Scrit (19 Nov 2005)

Why not order from Ron Hock direct? Although I'd suggest that rather than go to the Americans you could source a good quality new or old iron from Ray Iles at The Old Tool Store - he served his time in the Sheffield trades and nowadays makes repro Norris smoothers, replacement irons for tools like mitre planes and deals in antique/collectible tools. Another source of "new" old plane irons used to be Charles Stirling at Bristol Design on Perry Road in Bristol (email:[email protected]) who certainly had a stock of Earnshaw (or was it Ibbotson) irons bought from the factory when it closed down (or it might have been a wholesaler, not sure). Main thing to know is if you want a parallel iron or a traditional tapered one.

As to oil used, might I suggest linseed? If it's good enough to use on cricket bats....

Scrit


----------



## Alf (19 Nov 2005)

Scrit":3a25bc5o said:


> He is very knowledgable on tool steel cutters (and will tell you exactly _why_ our transatlantic cousins rarely use O1 or O2 steels and favour A2....).


Rather than bother Ray, you wouldn't be in a position to tell us, I s'pose, Scrit? :-$ 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MikeW (19 Nov 2005)

Alf":1dodhcss said:


> Scrit":1dodhcss said:
> 
> 
> > He is very knowledgable on tool steel cutters (and will tell you exactly _why_ our transatlantic cousins rarely use O1 or O2 steels and favour A2....).
> ...


Knight uses O1 fwiw. Several other plane makers here do as well. There are also a few repro blade makers (for anything you might have a need for like plow, combos, etc.). So we're not devoid of "less than A1" tooling for blades.

My personal opinion is it is merely to keep up with the company that made it popular, LN. Same with cyro-treating.

Give me HC anyday. Leaves the harder steels for tooling that is difficult to change frequently, like thicknesser / jointers applications.

Mike
another 2 cents in the pot


----------



## mr (19 Nov 2005)

The blades I think youre looking for are here http://www.fine-tools.com/hobels.htm and or here http://www.fine-tools.com/eisen.htm


----------



## ByronBlack (19 Nov 2005)

my head is spinning with all this blade technology! I'm going to stick with my rusty bog standard record 2" with the chipbreaker. Later down the line if I feel the need then i'll read up on all this crazy steel talk and make a decision :lol: 

Mr - thanks for the links, these supplier links are great - cheers!

Scrit - should it be 'boiled' linseed, or just regular stuff, i don't know too much about it as i've only used danish oil before.

Just thought of another question that someone might be able to help me with. I'm thinking of putting a handle on the plane and would like to know where I can buy some of those threaded ferrule type things that screw into the wood to accept a bolt?


----------



## mr (19 Nov 2005)

Looking at those Knight toolworks planes it appears that the blade is held in place by friction with the wedge only in the channel cut in the side plates. Is that the case? Other wooden planes Ive seen have had routed channels cut under the blades to take the screws holding chip breaker and blade in. Im also thinking about having a go at making a plane or two. I like the idea that a sole is not neccesary (call me cheap) and seeing as I have a fair amount of Ash offcuts was thinking of using that. Any reasons why not everyone else apears to be using expensive exotica, is that just a cosmetic thing?


----------



## Scrit (19 Nov 2005)

BB

At the risk of being branded a philistine I use boiled linseed oil (or BLO as our 'murrican cousins call it). If you do use it make sure that any cloth which has been in contact with it is unfolded and left to dry FLAT before disposal as boiled linseed oil contains dryers and generates heat when curing, which in extreme instances (such as in a crumpled cloth nin an enclosed can, etc) can cause the cloth to combust (remember being told that this is an exothermic reaction for those who like the long words). It will also darken your wood a bit (well, it darkens beech).

Scrit


----------



## Alf (19 Nov 2005)

Javier":1k3qnxtc said:


> Sorry, don't know what oil he used, but here's the link
> 
> http://showcase.netins.net/web/iabonsai/knight/building1.html


I could have sworn Steve had revealed the whole process on one of the forums, but I couldn't find it. However I did find this which suggests he's changed his habits. Unless he's changed again... :roll: :lol: It's noticeable that The Woodworker changed its advice sometime in the 30s to advising *not* to soak planes in oil, but rather just give them a quick coat of shellac. FWIW.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Scrit (19 Nov 2005)

Normally I just wipe them myself, but if I'm trying to bring an old dried-up husk back to life then a dunk in BLO can work wonders - seem to recall I got that from Mike Dunbar's original book many moons ago (must try it myself sometime) :lol: 

Just had a look at Alf's links and now slightly puzzled. It still looks to me that sealing with BLO might not be such a bad idea as once polymerised it should reduce the tendency of the woodwork to absorb moisture and warp. Probably no bad idea in this country as I find that "woodies" can need periodic truing to counteract the effects of environment

Scrit


----------



## Javier (19 Nov 2005)

mr said:


> Looking at those Knight toolworks planes it appears that the blade is held in place by friction with the wedge only in the channel cut in the side plates. Is that the case? Other wooden planes Ive seen have had routed channels cut under the blades to take the screws holding chip breaker and blade in. Im also thinking about having a go at making a plane or two. I like the idea that a sole is not neccesary (call me cheap) and seeing as I have a fair amount of Ash offcuts was thinking of using that. quote]
> 
> The Krenov style planes use the routed channel for the chipbreaker screw.
> I don't think I'd worry as much about wear or about using an exotic sole
> ...


----------



## Alf (20 Nov 2005)

Scrit":5ch84x2s said:


> It still looks to me that sealing with BLO might not be such a bad idea


I assume _sealing_ was still considered a Good Thing, but the practice of _soaking_ dropped out of favour. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ByronBlack (20 Nov 2005)

does anyone know of a supplier who can sell the threaded ferrul things that screw into wood that receive a bolt - something that I can use to attach a handle to the body of the plane - or to allow me to use a brass bolt to bolt the blade to the body?

I've looked at my usual suppliers and can't seem to find anyone who does this kind of hardware.


----------



## Scrit (20 Nov 2005)

Byron

Traditional wooden planes didn't use a ferrule/threaded rod at all. The handles were glued into a stopped groove or dado. Metal planes (like Stanley) seem to use a non standard threads, so you're not going to get an insert to work with their spares. Threaded inserts for wood can be had from Woodfit. It's in their catalogue but for the life of me I can't find what I want on the web site. Isaac Lord at High Wycombe should be able to supply what you want as well. But if you go that way (i.e. standard threads) you'll need to get someone to turn you a brass ferrule  

Scrit


----------



## DaveL (20 Nov 2005)

Byron, 

Axminster do these inserts for jig making, you could use them to hold the tote on, but as Scrit says, my woodies have them glued on, studs are not used.


----------



## Alf (20 Nov 2005)

If you want 6mm ones, go to Screwfix instead - _much_ cheaper. For a tote design and an idea of how they used to be held in a mortise, have a look at this.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## mr (20 Nov 2005)

I have some 8 mm ones, least I think theyre 8mm have to check. HOw many do you need?
edit - they came from screwfix 
http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?cId=101697&ts=91389&id=28157


----------



## Jarviser (20 Nov 2005)

Alf":3fjbygtf said:


> Scrit":3fjbygtf said:
> 
> 
> > It still looks to me that sealing with BLO might not be such a bad idea
> ...



I can't imagine why The Woodworker decided that. The next thing an apprentice did in the early 20th century after making his wooden jointer plane was to block up the mouth and fill the escapement with raw linseed oil, and keep it topped up for several weeks until the whole thing was soaked. The reason was to increase the weight, and to have a degree of self-lubrication. I certainly doubled the weight of an old beech mallet by soaking in "RLO" for a week. Beech drinks the stuff through the end grain.


----------



## Alf (20 Nov 2005)

I don't recall if they gave a reason, there being rather more instruction than discussion in that era, but I'll see if I can find it again. I may be some time as I've been through 5 annuals in about a week, and three are without an index! :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Alf (20 Nov 2005)

Okay, found the first reference in July 1938. I think just using shellac came later, but may have coincided with wartime restrictions so possibly just a sign of the times. Anyway, no reason given, as you can see:



> New beechwood planes should not be soaked in raw linseed oil. It is better to apply the oil with a rag pad and wipe over the plane twice a day for three weeks. Finish off with a few rubbers of orange french polish.


I can see why anyone'd rather dump their plane in a bucket of oil and forget it, can't you? :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MikeW (20 Nov 2005)

I've done the soak and the twice/thrice applications. Probably a wash (sorry <g>) as to which takes more work.

With the tools I've soaked, I still needed to buff off what seeped out a couple times day for several days after removing from the pot.

But at least it is evenly penetrated...

Take care, Mike


----------



## Jarviser (20 Nov 2005)

Alf":1jb89mo1 said:


> Okay, found the first reference in July 1938. I think just using shellac came later, but may have coincided with wartime restrictions so possibly just a sign of the times.
> Cheers, Alf


There is a section in Charles Haywood's book "Tools for Woodwork" 1946 (Page 31 in my 1949 reprint) where he said that modern opinion was that soaking caused distortion, and advised 2 coats of shellac over the top, sides and ends (not the sole therefore). Not sure when CH became editor of The Woodworker, but he had a big influence at the time.


----------



## Jarviser (20 Nov 2005)

...I just found a reference to soaking, the September section of The Woodworker Annual 1936 (p 286) The "Lignum" woodworker advocates self-lubricated wood through soaking, the "Ferrum" woodworker advocates a linseed oil soaked wick for his metal plane to run over occasionally.


----------



## Anonymous (21 Nov 2005)

c...


----------



## Anonymous (21 Nov 2005)

d...


----------



## Alf (21 Nov 2005)

Jarviser":3szbryz4 said:


> There is a section in Charles Haywood's book "Tools for Woodwork"


Yep, found that last night myself. 



Jarviser":3szbryz4 said:


> Not sure when CH became editor of The Woodworker, but he had a big influence at the time.


From Charles Hayward's obituary, The Woodworker Nov-Dec 1998:



> In 1935 he moved to The Woodworker as assistant to the editor JCS Brough. On the outbreak of WW2 Brough promptly vanished to Scotland, leaving him [Hayward] in complete charge.



There's a Handworker/Machinist article in 1938 along the same lines as the Lignum/Ferrum one - now there's an argument that hasn't changed in 6o-odd years. :lol:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (21 Nov 2005)

Byron - I'd buy a s/h coffin woodie and use it' blade. The old W1 steel laminated blades are very good, and cheap. A coffin bodied woodie should cost between 1-4 GBP at a car boot sale.

Check the blade for (bad) rust before buying.

BugBear


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Nov 2005)

Excellent piece of advice BugBear - thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## Alf (21 Nov 2005)

Or buy a secondhand wooden jointer and cut out making the plane too... :wink: :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Nov 2005)

well there's no fun in that, and seeing as i'm not making my own blade it seems sensible to get one out of an old woody. Unless anyone can lend me a forge, some steel, a large hammer, and a high degree of skill.. anyone??


----------



## Alf (21 Nov 2005)

ByronBlack":2qxllnqw said:


> Unless anyone can lend me a forge, some steel, a large hammer, and a high degree of skill.. anyone??


Now there you are, thinking that's a joke, but there are sad, smoke-blackened galoots out there who've ended up doing _just that_. :lol: 

My advice is avoid doing anything BB suggests without careful analysis first. Question whether it'll help you down that honest incline we're all familiar with, The Slope, or off onto the Black Run he's taken, in the world of _tool making_. You've been warned. [-X :wink:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Nov 2005)

Appreciate the warning Alf - your words will be heeded (if that is such a word).


----------



## bugbear (21 Nov 2005)

> or off onto the Black Run he's taken, into the world of tool making.



Who me?

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/bowsaw.html

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/scrub.html

(this one's great - a tool for working on other tools!)
http://www.geocities.com/plybench/shop_ ... le_pointer

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/scratch.html

Anyway, I know "someone else" who's dipping toes into the deep waters of tool modification and making...

http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/spokeshavekit.html

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5595

And IIRC a Kronovian plane or two... ?
BugBear (who denies _everything_)


----------



## Alf (21 Nov 2005)

bugbear":1ldyl5qi said:


> tool modification and making...


Modification's allowed, and anyway I've been led astray.  Haven't made a plane for ages. O 

Cheers, Alf

Thinking it's a good thing BB didn't find her album of homemade tools...8-[


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Nov 2005)

Btw, for anyone like me who needs threaded inserts for wood, I have found some more suppliers:

http://www.ezlok.com/index2.htm

http://www.rosshandling.co.uk/threaded-inserts.asp

http://www.harrisonsilverdale.co.uk/products/WOOD.html


----------



## engineer one (22 Nov 2005)

peter pan said The purpose of a jointer does not seem to be widely understood. It is a plane designed to create a curved edge, for a sprung joint. Or if you were doing rubbed joints, the purpose would be to go blindly to the sprung joint and then by routine blindly to the straight edge. 

i know that i am going to regret this but!!!!! :? 

when you say curved edge what do you exactly mean??
i have heard about sprung joints, but how much curvature are we talking
about, and how do you achieve it???

in my world curved means across the surface rather than along it,
so what exactly does peter pan mean?  

paul :wink:


----------



## Javier (22 Nov 2005)

when you say curved edge what do you exactly mean??
i have heard about sprung joints, but how much curvature are we talking
about, and how do you achieve it???

in my world curved means across the surface rather than along it,
so what exactly does peter pan mean?  


He means along the surface of the edge you're jointing. From what I read
this is accomplished by jointing the edge perfectly straight then making a
pass or two along the middle section (about the middle 3rd) of the edge's
surface.


----------



## bugbear (22 Nov 2005)

> You need the long sole only to the extent that it participates with the blade projection in creating the curvature you want



Err.

Doesn't a long sole have the potential too "see" a high spot further away from the cutting point than a short sole, which is helpful, since the purpose of a jointer is to find and remove high spots, leaving all level (within a tolerance)

BugBear


----------



## Jarviser (22 Nov 2005)

I presume we are talking about making a long edge joint hollow in the middle and clamping it up tight to reduce thje tendency of the ends to open up as the wood dries out at the ends. It's a bit of an art to judge how much hollow to have, and I prefer to put the wood in stick and have it as dry as practicable, then plane a straight joint.


----------



## Shady (22 Nov 2005)

Sorry folks: my @??))!")")) connection is up and down like the proverbial rat/drainpipe scenario at the moment: I thinkI'm now back in the world of the internet....

Got to disagree with you there PeterPan: what you are describing is one way of using a jointer: I go with Bugbear here - the length is about 'planing off' high spots, instead of riding up and down them, which a shorter sole could do. A jointer produces joints - up to the user whether he goes for a 'sprung joint' or not, which is what this technique does.


----------



## engineer one (22 Nov 2005)

see what i could not figure was if you are using a board less than about
4 feet long, and a plane about 2 feet long, how in the hell you were going
to be able to produce a curve.

i understood and understand the principle, just could not figure the mechanics.

i also cannot understand why you would design a joint so that it needed
springing. i understand that in the olden days maybe people did 
not have as much technical knowledge about things, but surely these
days you try to make sure that the wood has similar grain patterns
along side each other to ensure less movement. i guess with kilned
wood, the movement may be greater, but surely then you change the 
kinds of joint, or end likes bread boarding? :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (22 Nov 2005)

e....


----------



## Shady (22 Nov 2005)

In answer to the second part of your question first - the rationale is that, as the wood will dry faster at the ends of the joint/finished piece, there is a possibility of 'extra' shrinkage there, as compared to the area in the centre of the piece, leading to a stress on the glue line at the ends. By building in a tiny wee degree of counter stress by hollowing the middle and then clamping the whole thing tight when glueing up, the likelihood of gaps appearing at the ends of your joint is reduced. It does work, but is not always vital with modern glues - and, as you say, careful design to minimise problems.

How to do it? well, it's a pretty small differential: I just use a stopped shaving - run the jointer from about 6 inches in and lift 6 inches before the end (on, say, a 6 foot table), and try to press down hardest in the middle.


----------



## Shady (22 Nov 2005)

Peter - good post: I'm not, however, imagining only your 'case b'. I was just saying that, from all I've done practically, and have read out of interest, the length of a jointer is primarily concerned with making the production of a straight joint line easier than doing so with a shorter base. However the stock starts out, this is, certainly in my experience, easier with a longer base (up to a practical weight/handling limit), because you are not as likely to be 'surfing' with any irregularities. I'm sure, of course, that if my technique was better, I'd achieve the same with a number 4 - but I find the number 7 much easier and quicker for this task. (edit - my original point stands - I really do not see how it can be considered to be a plane 'designed to produce a sprung joint' - I'd be grateful if you could explain whether this is your theory, or something you have been taught - because it's a new one on me - it's a plane that minimises 'curviness' in the product, in all my experience, such as it is.)


----------



## Anonymous (22 Nov 2005)

...a


----------



## Anonymous (22 Nov 2005)

...b


----------



## Philly (22 Nov 2005)

PeterPan
Hold on a sec-excuse me if I missunderstand you.
You are saying a jointer (or hand plane with a long sole) is NOT necessarily better at planing a flat surface than a smoother (plane with a shorter sole).
You sure about this?
And that a long soled plane does NOT help when trying to make a surface "flat"?
I appreciate that the natural tendancy of a hand plane is to plane a slightly convex surface, hence the "couple of swipes thru the middle" practise. And that springing a joint is a well used method of jointing edges (is this because of the convex curve a plane introduces??), but my experiences have shown that a longer soled plane will cut a flatter surface than a shorter soled one when preparing timber.
I understand that if you machine prepare your timber before final prep with a plane you only need a smoother (or super-smoother, David Charlesworth style) as the flattening has been performed (hopefully) mostly by the machine. But a longer soled plane gives a flatter surface.
Now please tell me I totally misunderstood you :roll: :lol: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Anonymous (22 Nov 2005)

...f


----------



## engineer one (23 Nov 2005)

knew i would regret this, my head is spinning :-({|= 

but i do remember the past telling me that the best joint, and one
which would stay stuck together was the so called "rubbed joint"

in my view modern glues may make this a better joint for 
stopping end cracks than springing, because the stresses are
greater, but they benefit from the two boards to be joined
being rubbed together to properly spread the glue.
this works even better with the "never used" biscuits :lol: 

but where this helps in making the wooden plane i am not sure. :lol: 
paul


----------



## Philly (23 Nov 2005)

PP
So you don't think longer soled planes are any help when it comes to planing a surface or edge flat. You believe that it is down to the skill of the user and that any plane can be used for that. Correct?
I do agree that having a jointer plane does not guarantee a result and that the users skill and judgement need to be used to produce the results you are after. But a beginner will have a flatter piece of timber if using a jointer plane to do this than using a smoothing plane. And why is the jointer plane in the toolbox of every Master cabinetmaker I could name? Are they all just misled by marketing?
You say you don't think hand planes are indexed for flattening work-I thought that was the reason for their existence? Could you elaborate?
(PP, I am so near to wanting to believe what you are saying because you obviously are talking a lot of sense, and I'm really enjoying this discourse. I hope I'm not putting your nose out by "arguing"  )
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Alf (23 Nov 2005)

engineer one":387aczge said:


> knew i would regret this, my head is spinning :-({|=


You and me both. This is one of the best arguments for forgetting the theory and just doing the job that I've ever read. :lol:



PeterPan":387aczge said:


> 1) Accuracy, the longer base is more accurate;
> 
> 2) Spans more bumps.


It spans more bumps, ergo it's more accurate I'd have thought.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Shady (23 Nov 2005)

I'm with Alf here: Peter, you write with confidence, and obviously know what you're doing, but I'm gonna stick with using my jointer to make long jointing surfaces... All getting too circular for this bear of little brain.. :?


----------



## engineer one (23 Nov 2005)

this is obviously a case where too little knowledge is a good thing
and too much dangerous :lol: 

i think it is a case of sticking with what works for you, and as your
confidence expands you can try other things, but rather like 
breadboard ends, it also depends upon what you are making. :wink: 
paul


----------



## ByronBlack (23 Nov 2005)

Here's some newbie experience for you:

When I was at the bruce luckhurst course recently, we spent the majority of the first 3 or 4 days planning wood to size, and flatness.

I used a scrub, no.5 and a jointer, and guess what? It was much much easier to get a flat surface with the plane that had a longer sole! Also when I was preparing edges for glueing, again the jointer prepared the best edge for a good good line, when using the no.5 it was much harder.

For me that is enough practical evidence to tell me that you use a jointer to create nice flat glue surfaces for edge-jointing.

We also practiced the technique for spring-jointing, but in my short-experience (guitar building, and panel-making) a standard flat-edge joint has always proven to be strong joint - and was created with a jointer.


----------



## Anonymous (24 Nov 2005)

....


----------



## MikeW (24 Nov 2005)

PeterPan":2g6agnms said:


> ...On the other hand, a lot of people making a buck will joint the wood on the planer, and still hand plane it with a jointer plane for a better joint. There are no bumps on the machined surface, except for the tiny ripples from the blade action, and these could certainly be removed with a smoothing plane if that was the point, yet many craftsmen hand joint the edge. *It isn't in order to span the bumps!* Touché!


It isn't? Guess I've been leading a deluded life.

My opinion, fwiw, is that a machine jointer cannot make as straight a board as I can with the old Ohio #8. At least up to 8 foot. Which is one [minor] reason why I sold my PM 54A.

Look, my goal in edge joining boards is to be able to balance to boards on edge and with a clamp at one end--right near the end--is to squeeze the boards and not have the other end lift off. I then try it from the other end. And if I can see light in the center I plane it out. And I use a square to check that the boards line up across the faces.

Guess you can tell I eschew sprung joints :lol: 

Ok, cranky is going back out to the shop.

Mike


----------



## Anonymous (24 Nov 2005)

....


----------



## Philly (24 Nov 2005)

Philly":1yj5pbvv said:


> You say you don't think hand planes are indexed for flattening work-I thought that was the reason for their existence? Could you elaborate?


PP
You seem to have not seen this question? Any details?
Philly


----------



## MikeW (24 Nov 2005)

PeterPan":3anl5rt6 said:


> The fact it planes in spring does not mean you have to use it. In your example you could have dropped all the clamping and unclamping, just planed the spring in and backed it out, no fuss no measuring. I would probably not do that on an 8 footer because it sounds like work, with a 22 inch plane.


Even if a board over that distance appear to not be sprung (due to sag even on an edge) doesn't mean that it is either sprung or that there is a hump. The clamp will reveal it. Takes mere minutes. I waste more time getting another cup of coffee.

But then, what's the point of planing it in and back out? That's rhetorical. No need to answer.

SNIP



PeterPan":3anl5rt6 said:


> I do wonder how they did it in old shops when they didn't use clamps. I would have done it as I describe, cause you can carry on a conversation, and never need take the plane out of your hand. Works for seminars too. But I don't know how it really was done.


You assume clamps didn't exist in the old shops? Must be really old shops. They've existed for longer than I've been able to trace my ancestors.

The second half of your paragraph makes no sense.

But, I'm tired. It's night-night time for me.

Take care, Mike


----------



## Anonymous (24 Nov 2005)

I've removed the offending posts.


----------



## Scrit (24 Nov 2005)

PeterPan":jvjhvhjg said:


> ...On the other hand, a lot of people making a buck will joint the wood on the planer, and still hand plane it with a jointer plane for a better joint. There are no bumps on the machined surface, except for the tiny ripples from the blade action, and these could certainly be removed with a smoothing plane if that was the point, yet many craftsmen hand joint the edge. It isn't in order to span the bumps! Touché!



I'll hold my hand up to "post planing" with a jointer here. I suppose it's tradition to use a jointer, maybe something in the back of my head is saying that having just used a planer with a long infeed table (in my case 1.2 metres, but some machines are available with 2m or longer) it may well introduce inaccuracies to then shoot the edge with a smoother. But I tend to do my planing and thicknessing in longish sessions, sometimes 3 or 4 hours worth and planing the edges gives me a fresh edge to glue which I am told by the glue manufacturers will produce a better bond (something to do with oxidation, free radical migration, etc - another debate :roll: ) In the small shop with a short bed planer the use of a jointer plane may well produce a straighter joint than the machine itself can, so post planing has its merits _in certain instances_. Maybe I should change over to one of those Japanese straight line planers so in vogue in the 1970s and early 1980s in the USA and "cut-out the middle man"? Robinson's of Rochdale _et al_ were making their precursors in the 1850s, but I think I'd have a problem finding one now!



MikeW":jvjhvhjg said:


> My opinion, fwiw, is that a machine jointer cannot make as straight a board as I can with the old Ohio #8. At least up to 8 foot. Which is one [minor] reason why I sold my PM 54A.



I find that rather curious. If I have it correct a Powermatic 54A has a 33in infeed table (66in overall table length), making 9 inches it longer than your Ohio #8 jointer plane (assuming that the Ohio plane is the same length as the Stanley, Record, Sargent, et al). Yet the Powermatic cannot produce as straight an edge? Please explain.

Surely one of the points to come out of this discussion is that glues (and therefore cramping techniques) have changed radically over the last 150 years. Modern glues are far superior to hide glues in almost every way, although I still don't like having to wear a respirator when mixing and using UF glues (fortunately the arrival of D3 cross-linked PVAs will probably see an end to this). Modern T-bar cramps can squeeze a joint dry if so required, and I can "spot weld" a joint with the RF glue curer to free the cramps for the next glue-up in a few minutes, so sprung joints are really an anachronism. They are a throw-back to the days of pinch dogs which will only work properly if the joint is sprung. I suppose if you were so inclined you could argue that a sprung joint if clamped from the centre outwards will maintain a better joint than a straight joint. Modern glues are not designed to be gap filling, so ideally you are looking for the least amount of gap between the two surfaces to be glued - and it probably matters little if that edge is straight or banana shaped, so long as the joint produced is _tight_. Having to pull up a joint up under heavy cramping is asking to squeeze out the glue, thus starving the joint, and is possibly introducing (unnecessary) extra stress into the joint into the bargain.

Scrit


----------



## ByronBlack (24 Nov 2005)

PP

Just because some of us in this discussion don't hold the same opinions of yourself, doesn't mean you should throw your toys out of the pram and 'remove the offending posts', there's nothing offensive about them, and not only does it ruin this thread for a future reader, but you have given us information - whether right or wrong (doesn't matter) that may benefit someone.

I hope that you can continue to contribute as it makes interesting reading AND discussion for all.

Scrit - I agree with you regards the sprung-joint, in this age of adhesives/glues there doesn't seem a real 'need' to create them, the joints i've created with perfectly squares edges and no-spring have all been super strong and succesful.


----------



## Alf (24 Nov 2005)

Well I've been musing on the sprung joint thing over night and starting to wonder why I do it. There are two things that seem to make it worth doing, at least as far as I'm concerned. Firstly, the DC argument. That is a slight hollow is preferable to a bump (see David Charlesworth DVD Part 2: Hand Planing). Secondly, it seems to me to make clamping up panels easier; get one clamp across the middle and it naturally springs the ends together. Now that may just be what I want to perceive, and I'm currently looking into hot glue more seriously _and_ at the delicate negotiation stage over some Planos with TPTB so that'll likely change my habits anyway, but _at the moment_, that's my excuse. Er, argument.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Scrit (24 Nov 2005)

Alf":1r0agiio said:


> Well I've been musing on the sprung joint thing over night ....
> .... it seems to me to make clamping up panels easier; get one clamp across the middle and it naturally springs the ends together....


You'll find that even if (sorry _when_) you get your Planos you'll still be tightening from the centre outwards in order to "roll" the pressure line out consistently. My theory, anyhow :lol: 

Scrit


----------



## Alf (24 Nov 2005)

Scrit":3mkfbhny said:


> if (sorry _when_) you get your Planos


Right the first time... :roll: :lol:


----------



## Shady (24 Nov 2005)

That's about why I do it Alf - same principle as the 'spring' in a caul for distributing clamping pressure - only in this case the workpiece is a 'self-cauling jig' - does that sound impressive?


----------



## Alf (24 Nov 2005)

Shady":31mujgic said:


> does that sound impressive?


Tremendously. Can I pinch it? :lol:


----------



## Shady (24 Nov 2005)

Yes - and the phrase... :wink:


----------



## Scrit (24 Nov 2005)

Shady":3syc0kjk said:


> does that sound impressive?


A bit more impressive than "warped"  :? :lol: 

Anyone like to explain how spring works in a 12 in wide x 3 in thick worktop plank, then? :twisted: 

Scrit


----------



## Alf (24 Nov 2005)

Scrit":3ex2mnsl said:


> Anyone like to explain how spring works in a 12 in wide x 3 in thick worktop plank, then? :twisted:


My pleasure. First provide me with at least one dozen 12 x 3 planks of a suitable premium hardwood and I'll start testing the theory immediately. 

And for Shady: :roll:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Jarviser (24 Nov 2005)

MikeW":139x5d02 said:


> You assume clamps didn't exist in the old shops? Must be really old shops. They've existed for longer than I've been able to trace my ancestors.



There were a lot of shops that would not own many sash cramps before the mid 20th C. especially amateurs. With traditional rubbed joints andhot glue, they only needed to lean the unclamped joined boards against two battens resting against a wall at about 20 degrees to the vertical, and let gravity do the rest. Then of course there were the "dogs" whacked into the end grain. A sprung joint could not be used in either instance.


----------

