# Effects of cap iron on planing...



## rileytoolworks (16 May 2012)

Saw this on another forum and just thought I'd post this here. It's a video showing the effects of a cap iron on planing.
Enjoy. http://giantcypress.net/post/2315954813 ... created-by
Adam.


----------



## adidat (16 May 2012)

fantastic video Adam, makes a lot of sense

adidat


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 May 2012)

Very interesting - thanks for posting.

It seems to me that the set up with the cap iron shaped to 80 degrees and set a little way back, approaches the sort of set up that you have with a scraper plane. With the scraper plane the blade is angled forwards (similar to the front edge of the cap iron shaped to 80 degrees) and breaks the shaving in a very similar way, thereby avoiding tearout.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (17 May 2012)

Interesting. Seems to confirm what we already know. Have I got this right? I might have to watch it again: 
Finely set very sharp blade copes best and cap iron has no effect. NB We know this already or we wouldn't find BU planes so useful.
Deeper cut then the cap iron does have a useful effect, but there's an optimum position above or below which it has less value, and an optimum angle. The nearer it resembles a scraper the more it behaves like a scraper. No surprises there then.
Hmm. 
Quite how you translate that into day to day plane usage is another question!


----------



## Corneel (17 May 2012)

Re your first conclusion, wish it was always true. There are plenty of pieces of wood that give you trouble also with very thin shavings. And then there is the speed of working. It would be nice if you could take thicker shavings. 

Re the second conclusion, maybe but it doesn't leave a scraped surface! This is very important for the japanese who work often with unfinished wooden surfaces.


----------



## Philly (17 May 2012)

I wish they would do the same tests but with the iron at higher angles than 40 degrees - be interesting to see how that alters the equation?
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 May 2012)

That is interesting.

Another test that might be of value is to investigate the effects of the plane's mouth - does a very tight mouth setting affect the shaving by preventing splitting ahead of the blade edge? The old infill planes suggest that - be interesting to see if there's substance to the theory. They might even work without a cap-iron fitted.

The tests done also suggest that a plane with a widish mouth setting might be persuaded to reduce or eliminate tearout by the use of close-set or tight-angle cap-iron, and it seems that David C has already tried a few experiments 'in the field' with some promising results - see Bugbear's thread. So tight mouths may not be always necessary - and wouldn't work anyway with the 80 degree cap-iron, because the shaving escape would be blocked.


----------



## Corneel (17 May 2012)

You do all allready know this is an old study? The machine probably doesn't exist anymore.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 May 2012)

We had a long discussion on WoodCentral. This was my take ..

1. A better term (in the context of this research) for cap iron (although this was used in the subtitles) is "chip breaker" since the research is all about how the second iron breaks the shaving and how it may improve the surface left behind.

2. The aim is to use the lowest possible bevel angle. This point was raised by Warren (a longstanding member of WoodCentral and confirmed "neanderthal", professional furniture maker) since a lower bevel angle will produce a better surface finish than a higher bevel angle (all other conditions held constant, including the use of medium difficulty woods). Consequently, the use of a high angle plane in this context is counter to the ideals of the study.

The conclusion of this research may be summarised as: on a 40 degree bed (= cutting angle), using a 30 degree bevel angle, the least tearout occurred when the chip breaker was 0.2mm from the edge of the blade, and the leading edge of the chip breaker was ground at 80 degrees.

Observations and questions:

1. The setting of a chip breaker at this distance is not easy. There appears to be a small margin for error. The performance was slightly worse 0.1mm further back but still good. 

2. The ideal chip breaker type is to be identified. Warren and others have been happy with the standard Stanley. I am not sure what angle Warren has his ground, or whether he simply relies on the distance to the edge of the blade. Warren?

It does strike me that there are several aftermarket chip breakers that lend themselves better than Stanley to being ground to the ideal angle at their leading edge.

3. If experimenting with Bailey-type planes, such as LN, or woodies with double irons, where the frog may be 50 degrees (which is not much different from 45 degrees), what is the ideal angle for the chip breaker. My logic says it should be 75 degrees (5 degrees lower than the 80 degrees on a 45 degree frog). 

4. Keep in mind that this is about finding a way of improving smoothers only. The research includes using a very fine shaving. This would not be practical in other types of planes and woodworking demands where thicker shavings are more appropriate (such as jointing or using a jack).

5. There is no implication here that higher angled planes are irrelevant. Both BD and BU planes are still as valid as ever, However, there is the possibility that (a) the performance of a lower cutting angle may be capable of being used for more complex situations, and (b) some will enjoy the benefits of fewer smoothers (OK, I was just kidding ..).

6. The area needs to replicated on different woods. The Japanese White Bark Magnolia is a medium hard wood (Janka around 1000, as I can make out), and does not look as though the grain wanders around much (noting, however, that the tests were done into the grain). Harder woods and more complex grain may vary the outcome. As far as I know this area has not been addressed.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 May 2012)

> The tests done also suggest that a plane with a widish mouth setting might be persuaded to reduce or eliminate tearout by the use of close-set or tight-angle cap-iron, and it seems that David C has already tried a few experiments 'in the field' with some promising results - see Bugbear's thread. So tight mouths may not be always necessary - and wouldn't work anyway with the 80 degree cap-iron, because the shaving escape would be blocked.



There is sufficient evidence from studies (some of it mine) and anecdotal reports that the size of the mouth is no longer of any importance at about 55-60 degrees. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## custard (17 May 2012)

What are the implications of a 0.2mm cap iron setting in terms of,

1. Cambered iron?
2. Back bevel/ruler trick?


----------



## Corneel (17 May 2012)

1. Yes that doesn't work. But for smoother type cambers it'll still fit. 
2. A ruler trick sized backbevel doesn't matter. Bigger ones could be problametic. But the bigger ones are used to reduce tearout, which isn't neccessary anymore with a well fited capiron.


----------



## custard (17 May 2012)

Maybe the new ruler trick is the "camber trick"! You position the cap iron by aligning it to the limits of the camber, each defines the other!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 May 2012)

custard":2n89jc0v said:


> What are the implications of a 0.2mm cap iron setting in terms of,
> 
> 1. Cambered iron?
> 2. Back bevel/ruler trick?



With regards the cambered iron, the camber on a smoother is very small. Nevertheless it seems to me that it would still be too large to allow the chip breaker to get to the desired distance from the edge, and even if it did, it would be uneven. If serious about this technique, one should also file the chip breaker to match the camber. 

I cannot see the ruler trick having any impact on the effect reported. It is simply a method for ensuring a clean blade back/sharp blade.

A high back bevel is in the same category as a high cutting angle - not desired in the context of this technique as the aim is to use a common cutting angle.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Paul Chapman (17 May 2012)

Far less trouble to just use a scraper plane, IMHO. Very easy to set up and, in my experience, works successfully every time in dealing with tearout.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## David C (17 May 2012)

Paul,

Can you take 4 thou" shavings with your scraper plane? And I wonder which set up is going to keep working for the longest time?

best wishes,
David


----------



## woodbrains (17 May 2012)

Hello,

The ruler trick will definitely affect this setup as I doubt you could make the back bevel produced this way significantly less than .2mm. setting the cap iron.2mm back from the intersection would mean the minimum distance from the point the shaving is raised to the leading edge of the cap iron is not likely to be less than .4mm. However, the slight increase in effective pitch might just about negate the losses and a finely set mouth, exerting some downward pressure at the point the shaving is raised will definitely more than compensate. Also, a 0.1mm thick shaving is quite thick if you know you are taming difficult timber, a sensible person would reduce that significantly. The tester has to keep parity in all things to make the results meaningful; Keeping test simulated criteria in real world situations is inappropriate.

A fine mouth does give significantly reduce tear out. I have used a Steve Knight single iron smoother with a mouth setting of about 1thou (sorry for mixing my measurement systems, but the plane is American!) Admittedly it was a thick York Pitched iron, but no cap iron and a 30 deg honed bevel. Obviously the shaving was super fine with a mouth opening like that, BUT it out preformed LN and Veritas planes of all descriptions, wood smoothers and everything else with double irons, but slightly wider mouths and/or thinner irons. The only other planes that worked were Veritas and LN scraper planes, though the surface was not as smooth.

The upshot is, a slightly wider mouthed plane is achieveable with a double iron which allows faster workrates (thicker shavings) in almost all woods, to a comparable finish to a fine mouthed smoother. The latter will surpass double ironed planes in the most difficult woods, but it may not be possible to use a cap iron due to the shavings choking. That said, it is unlikely the cap iron in this instance will actually give any benefit. Balancing the size of the mouth and the cap iron setting is the thing which experience helps us with and some knowledge we find alone the way from tests such as these.

Incidentally, I have always set my cap irons very close, though I have never bothered to measure exactly how close. Logic told me a long time ago, that the shaving should be broken as soon as possible after the cut, so I did and found it worked better than the 'usual' setting prescribed in textbooks. Sometimes trial and error is all we can go on, when we do not have electron microscopes to hand.

Mike.


----------



## David C (17 May 2012)

Mike,

That was most interesting.

I don't understand your reservations about the ruler trick which was used on the blades for my experiment. Ruler trick polish may be anything from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm wide. The angle is approx 0.6 of one degree. I form the underside edge of my chipbreakers with at least one degree of clearance angle, so they fit the blade perfectly whatever setting is used.

I am fairly sure that the finish from 0.1mm shavings, taken with ultra close set chipbreaker will be independant of mouth width, (there is no mouth shown in the research film), so choking will not be an issue.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## woodbrains (17 May 2012)

Hello David,

I actually like the ruler trick and use it occasionally. It got me out of trouble when I had to prep up 2 dozen block planes for a school tec dept. Obviously no cap iron there, it just got the very poor irons usable without flattening the backs.

I think I may have misunderstood your method, though. The time I used the ruler trick on a BD plane, I kept the bevel very short as if it was a 'real' back bevel and then positioned the cap iron as you would in that instance. it works well and can be changed back without too much effort. Obviously you are seeming to ignore the 'back bevel' and place the cap iron onto it, with a releif angle on the cap iron, to maintain a good contact. I stand corrected. I think one or two contributors here might also be misunderstanding.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (17 May 2012)

Yes Mike, you are absolutely right. There is more to it then just the capiron. It's not a magic stick, just a very usefull tool.

As David explained, there is no problem with setting the capiron on top of your backbevel, as long as it's not too steep, and as long as your capiron has a relief angle behind its edge.


----------



## Corneel (18 May 2012)

Jacob, I really don't understand why you are still arguing against this technique. It's completely in line with your ideas of doing good work with simple tools. Any old Stanley with thin iron can quickly be transformed into a supersmoother. You could sell your LV low bevel thing AND your Ros. 

It's very easy too. Hone a narrow microbevel, something like 70-80 degrees, on your cap iron. Then turn the iron with capiron into the light so you can see the reflection of the narrow line behind the edge. Do this before you fully tighten the screw so you can still push it forward. Then move it forward as far as you dare. Tighten te screw. 

That's all. 

Then experiment. Grab some gnarly stuff from the bin. Full of knots is good. And wonder about how easilly this stuff gets smooth. Don't take thin shavings, make them thick, just to wonder even more.

In a lot of circumstances you won't need this uebersmoother. So you could dedicate just one of your old Stanleys or Records to this task with a straightish edge. Maybe clip the corners to prevent tramlines.

Another advantage of this setting is the increased support of the edge. No chatter anymore, not even with a cheesy UK 1980's Stanley blade.


----------



## Jacob (18 May 2012)

Corneel":1c93hmag said:


> Jacob, I really don't understand why you are still arguing against this technique. It's completely in line with your ideas of doing good work with simple tools. Any old Stanley with thin iron can quickly be transformed into a supersmoother. You could sell your LV low bevel thing AND your Ros.
> 
> It's very easy too. Hone a narrow microbevel, something like 70-80 degrees, on your cap iron. Then turn the iron with capiron into the light so you can see the reflection of the narrow line behind the edge. Do this before you fully tighten the screw so you can still push it forward. Then move it forward as far as you dare. Tighten te screw.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure which technique I'm arguing against - there seem to be so many variables and alternative ideas kicking about!
Steep cap iron microbevel? I had a cap iron with about a 90º at the edge and it wouldn't plane at all - thick shavings just concertina'd up against it and wouldn't clear. Thin shavings not much better. A lot better when I backed it off!
I'll keep fiddling about though - it's all harmless fun. If you really _can_ improve any old Stanley to be better than a LV la bu smoother I'm all for it!
I found that stayset irons did improve performance considerably - was this just down to geometry, which I could have achieved by filing and polishing?


----------



## Corneel (19 May 2012)

The main point of the capiron technique is setting the capiron really close to the edge. Closer tgen you ever thought possible. I meassured once just to have an idea what i'm looking at and it was 0.2mm. You can see now how the shavings straighten out. Don't curl as much anymore. More important you don't leave any tearout.

The steepened capironis just an extra helpfull bit. 90degrees is abit too much probably.


----------



## David C (19 May 2012)

Just a few words about camber.

I have prepared my smoothing plane chipbreakers, for many years , with a similar or slightly greater camber than my blades. Just using the same techniques which I use on the blades.
Now these curves are certainly not exactly matched, but seem close enough, and have not caused any problems yet.

The more people we can get to try these techniques, the better.
Best wishes,
David


----------



## ac445ab (19 May 2012)

Corneel":xpyn2t1o said:


> The main point of the capiron technique is setting the capiron really close to the edge. Closer tgen you ever thought possible. I meassured once just to have an idea what i'm looking at and it was 0.2mm. You can see now how the shavings straighten out. Don't curl as much anymore. More important you don't leave any tearout.
> 
> The steepened capironis just an extra helpfull bit. 90degrees is abit too much probably.


Hi Corneel, 
This technique of setting chipbreaker is interesting, but how did you measure 0.2 mm on your chipbreaker?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 May 2012)

Here's what happened to me today ..

I used a Stanley #3, initially set up with a Mujngfang HSS blade. It is a little thicker than the original Stanley. I also used an original Stanley blade. Wood was a nasty piece of Jarrah.

What I found was that the mouth would jam with shavings if I closed the chip breaker down (it was set at 0.03". The leading edge angle of the chip breaker was 50 degrees). Pulling the chip breaker back alleviated the problem. Of course that does not help with the experiment. So I swapped the Mujingfang for a thinner Stanley blade to create a wider mouth (the frog was already pulled back as far as it could go). But same thing all over again. 

I redid the experiment, this time with the front of the chip breaker ground and honed to 80 degrees (as per the research). This made it worse as the thickness of the chip breaker was forced even further forward than before, and blocked up the mouth even more.

Now I was serious about this experiment. I have photos of everything and happy to post them. I was going to compare the Stanley #3 with a LN #5 (double iron with 55 degree frog), Veritas SBUS (single iron, 62 degree cutting angle), and Marcou BU smoother (single iron, 60 degree cutting angle).

All the blades were freshly sharpened. Out of interest, in addition to the HSS Mujingfang in the Stanley #3, I had an A2 blade in the LN, a Veritas test 3V blade in the Marcou, and a pre-production PM-Vll blade in the SBUS (not that any of this is relevant to to outcome). All the planes took excellent shaving (with the Stanley set up with the chip breaker 1/8" back), but the surface finish is where the results count: it was pretty much in order of the cutting angle, with both the Marcou and the SBUS (with the higher angles) leaving a better finish that the LN. The finish of the Stanley was a little clearly rough. 

So, I just could not pull it off with the chip breaker. Since others are claiming positive results, clearly i am doing something wrong. Clear this up for me.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (19 May 2012)

Derek,

There was one thing about the Stanley plane I used, the front edge of throat is filed and polished at 15 degrees forward. The 

My next thought is that the 80 or 75 degree edge of the C/B should be kept quite narrow, perhaps 0.012". I have guessed this from the film.

I am also fairly sure that width of mouth has no effect on this arrangement, so may as well be wide!

Best wishes,
David


----------



## Corneel (19 May 2012)

I had troubles with not enough pressure of the capiron on the blade. Shavings were pushed under it, leading to clogging. So i bended the capiron in a vice. You really need a lot of pressure there.


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2012)

3 conclusions I draw from this thread:
1 without a cap iron a sharp blade finely set will be effective on difficult grain
2 with a cap iron, ditto.
3 with a cap iron, if you fiddle about for long enough you may get a good but deeper cut on difficult wood, but there are so many variables that you can't rely on this, but have a go if you have plenty of spare time!

I'd add to 1 - many planes need the cap iron as part of the blade holding system, with "chip breaker" tendencies being just a side benefit.


----------



## Corneel (20 May 2012)

No, I'm afraid you don't quite get it.

- The chipbreaker lets you take thick shavings without tear out. That's a major time saver, especially for people without big machinery.
- Your plane becomes a universal planing machine. Easy straight wood? Pull back the chipbreaker and whale away. Some light tearout? Set the chipbreaker at about 0.4 to 0.5 mm and have at it. Really difficult grain? Set it very close and have fun. This is especially important for people without a huge plane collection. For the avarage user of this forum it's a good idea to prepare your smoothers and jointers with different chipbreaker settings.
- The chipbreaker protects the back of your iron. This should mean less wear of the edge at that side. As long as you have enough relief angle you can keep planing for longer. (To be honest, this is just a theory for me at the moment, I didn't really experiment enough yet).
- When you can finish boards without having to resort to scraping or sanding, the woodsurface is much nicer.


----------



## Corneel (20 May 2012)

ac445ab":n4koe5tz said:


> Corneel":n4koe5tz said:
> 
> 
> > The main point of the capiron technique is setting the capiron really close to the edge. Closer tgen you ever thought possible. I meassured once just to have an idea what i'm looking at and it was 0.2mm. You can see now how the shavings straighten out. Don't curl as much anymore. More important you don't leave any tearout.
> ...




Sorry i forgot to answer this question. I used a vernier caliper. The depth meassuring part of it. It' a bit fiddly so take the number with a grain of salt.


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2012)

Corneel":2ywgydyf said:


> No, I'm afraid you don't quite get it.
> 
> - The chipbreaker lets you take thick shavings without tear out. That's a major time saver, especially for people without big machinery.
> - Your plane becomes a universal planing machine. Easy straight wood? Pull back the chipbreaker and whale away. Some light tearout? Set the chipbreaker at about 0.4 to 0.5 mm and have at it. Really difficult grain? Set it very close and have fun. This is especially important for people without a huge plane collection. For the avarage user of this forum it's a good idea to prepare your smoothers and jointers with different chipbreaker settings.
> ...


It'd be nice if it was so simple! I'll certainly bear it in mind. What about wear on the cap iron?


----------



## Corneel (20 May 2012)

Theoretecally you would expect wear on the capiron. But according to Warren Mickley, an old time defender of the capiron on the American woodforums, it's not a factor. He hasn't repaired his capirons in 30 years. 

We will see. I am not even sure if that effect on the wear of the iron is noticable at all.


----------



## Modernist (20 May 2012)

Although the original video is interesting I am a bit concerned it has too many differences with actual conditions to be meaningful. In particular the effect of the plane body is missing both in front of and behind the edge. I think this is very important, especially the leading edge, which must improve the situation if smoothed and angled by holding the fibres down more effectively in front of the blade, thus decreasing tearout. This is of course only true if the mouth is set very fine. This adjustment to the mouth also reduces the chance of jamming with a fine mouth setting.

It can be clearly seen that the levering effect on the shaving is caused only by the blade as there is a radius of clearance under the shaving where the CB meets the blade (but the shaving remains in contact with the blade). This seems to support the idea that the effect of the CB is to compress the shaving between the CB and the edge, working against the levering effect of the edge, and therefore decreasing the chance of tearout. This point was not really emphasised in the video other than to note the compression effect which is of course increased with higher CB leading angles, along with the chances of jamming.

It seems to me that the effect of the so called chip breaker may actually be shaving compressor in addition to its role in blade clamping and vibration suppressor.

In my own experience the best results are obtained with a sharp BU configuration with a thick blade and fine mouth i.e no CB. The much loved "singing" sound of common planes is, in fact, unwanted vibration, which is eliminated in my preferred arrangement.


----------



## Corneel (20 May 2012)

Modernist":2jipmx00 said:


> Although the original video is interesting I am a bit concerned it has too many differences with actual conditions to be meaningful. In particular the effect of the plane body is missing both in front of and behind the edge. I think this is very important, especially the leading edge, which must improve the situation if smoothed and angled by holding the fibres down more effectively in front of the blade, thus decreasing tearout. This is of course only true if the mouth is set very fine. This adjustment to the mouth also reduces the chance of jamming with a fine mouth setting.



My experiments of the last few weeks show me that the video is VERY meanigful. A tight chipbreaker and a tight mouth don't combine very well. So you should choose, either one or the other. I get the best results at the moment with an noname infill plane with a mouth opening around 3mm.

This cheap wooden plane, a somewhat newer Nooitgedagt with a prewar Nooitgedagt blade, works perfectly now on that rowy piece of maple on the left. Not a hint of tear out. The shaving was very thick for a smoother. 

This plane cost me about 5 euro, plus some fettling of course to clean up the blade, flatten te sole and removal of the paint spatters. It now works at least as good as your 300 pound bevel up planes. :twisted:


----------



## Modernist (20 May 2012)

The concept of tuning planes to produce thick shavings is new to me. Heavy stock removal is not normally a problem and for finishing I would expect the plane to be set for much less than the 0.1mm shown. Something like 0.03mm might be typical where mouth setting may be more important than CB setting but mainly requiring a very sharp blade e.g. 8000 grit to produce a fine finish.


----------



## Corneel (20 May 2012)

Of course this was just a test. I can take thinner shavings too. But it is pretty impressive to see this simple plane taking a thick shavinh against the grain without any tearout. That is major timesaver too when you want to get some work done. Every plane with a sharp blade and a flat sole can take thin shavings. It's the thick ones where you see the truely excelent planes appear.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 May 2012)

This is a copy of my post on SawMillCreek, where the identical thread is running.

Following up on my previous post, where I failed to improve the quality of shavings with a Stanley #3 on some interlocked Jarrah .....

I spent time today doing everything could think of, and even things I said I would not do, trying to give this my best shot.

I did take photos, which I will post if anyone desperately wants to see them, but I am just too busy right now to bother with them.

David Charlesworth's advice rang bells. I checked the plane, a UK-made Stanley #3. Yes, the mouth escapement was vertical. This would be a cause of the choking. However, before I filed it out, I replaced the HSS Mujingfang blade with the original. The original UK blade is a POS but it is thinner, and it did not have to hold an edge for long. I ground a new primary bevel, and honed it to 13000. That should be better. I also replaced the chip breaker, and refiled the leading edge to a micro 70-ish degrees. 

The mouth was now larger (since the Muji blade is thicker). I ran the plane down the Jarrah board ... and it chattered the entire length. Nice little parallel lines along the board. That won't do. At all. I'm sure I can turn the blade into something, but what ...?

Back to the Mujingfang blade. With the chip breaker back about 3mm it takes decent shavings, but the surface left is rough. If I move the chipbreaker forward, the mouth fills. I filed the escapement at 45 degrees. This left the mouth size unchanged but made some improvement to the flow of shavings (well done David). Unfortunately, it ended up choking after a short while. The mouth was still too small. 

So ... there was only one thing for it - I had to file open the mouth. I made my apologies to Bob (my late FIL), and carefully removed about 0.5mm. This did the trick, and the shaving now flowed easily.

However, the quality of the wood surface did not change one iota. Really. It was still rough to the touch and sight.

To compare, I ran the 55 degree LN #3 along the same spot. Much improved finish. Decently smooth. Not perfect, but acceptable. I ran the Veritas SBUS with a 62 degree cutting angle, and the finish was improved again. I did all these side by side, and it was possible to pick out the LN and Veritas. It was a no-brainer to decide which was the Stanley.

There you have it. I will try again with a different Stanley - for what it is worth. I really did hope to see some improvement, something along the lines a few others have reported. 

What I should add is that this may be part of the learning path one needs to go through to master the technique. If so, the point should be made that this method is finicky, and there are other methods to reach the goal that are just so much easier. The goal is an improved finish on wood with difficult grain. I have no difficulty achieving a fine finish with high angle planes. The reason to try and do so with a common angle plane is the belief that a lower cutting angle shears the wood and has greater potential for the finish. I must disagree that the finish off one of my high angled planes does not leave a shine. 

I think that it is horses for courses. The timber I use is perhaps the limiting factor. Anyway, as I said, I will keep trying. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Steve Elliott (20 May 2012)

Derek,

Your experience planing interlocked grain is the same as mine. Back in 2005 when I first heard of Kato's work I tried a closely set cap iron on the most difficult wood I could find, a piece of Bolivian rosewood. The closely set cap iron reduced tearout considerably and convinced me that cap irons work, but when I compared the results to those produced with a steep cutting angle the 59.5 degree cutting angle gave the better surface.

In addition, the Bolivian rosewood would not form a continuous shaving. Instead the shaving broke up into smaller bits while it was still in the plane and if I remember correctly had more of a tendency to fill up the throat, even though it was not actually jamming.

The species I normally work are North American hardwoods which produce better shavings and respond to a closely set cap (which I only use when necessary) much better than the hard tropical wood I used for the test.

My account of the cap iron test can be seen at http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/a_controlled_test.html.


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2012)

I thought I'd delete this one I might have missed the point!


----------



## Corneel (20 May 2012)

Derek,

Not trying to sound like a know-it-all. But how tight did you set the chipbreaker to the edge? On my first trials I thought it was very very close, but wasn't impressed with the results. So I measured with a vernier caliper about 0.4mm. Well that obviously wasn't tight enough. After halving that distance I started to get good results.

But I don't plane Jarah of course.

I wonder, how did the old time Australian carpenters work that stuff? Or didn't the use Jarah for finer woodworking things?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 May 2012)

Hi Corneel

It was between .2mm and .3mm. I used a Starrett adjustable square to set the distance, having measured the projection beforehand.

Trying to get it closer is tough with Stanley chip breakers. Even if I was not close enough (and as I said earlier I shall try again), this illustrates that this method is not a practical one, that is, there are other more efficient methods around. 

I will try again with a LN chip breaker, and even perhaps a Clifton. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2012)

Maybe you hit the limit of what an old Stanley can do? Warren probably won't agree...
The hardest wood I have is jatoba. I can plane that with thin shavings and a tight chipbreaker without trouble. But it's not in the same category as jarah.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 May 2012)

OK, once more back into the fray dear friends, once more ...

This time with pictures.

I elected to use a Bed Rock #604. This has a LN Chip Breaker and a M4 blade honed to 13000 on a Sigma. Let no one criticise the components! 

The chip breaker was given a microbevel of around 70-80 degrees ..







This is the Jarrah surface I am trying to tame. It looks worse here since it was last planed by the Stanley #3 in the abortive last effort.






For the first effort with the #604 - call it a baseline - I set the chip breaker at about 0.4 - 0.5mm, which is typical of my usual position. 






The shavings were nothing spectacular and nor was the wood surface (I would not usually use this plane on this wood), but it was an improvement over the Stanley #3 ..











Soooo ... now the chip breaker was repositioned at about 0.2mm ...






... and I started planning, waiting for the smooth surface to appear ... but it was a major anticlimax as the mouth clogged ...






OK, here's the culprit ... the chip breaker is not absolutely flush (although I did smooth it on a fone diamond stone.






Back to the waterstones. 

This is the only chip breaker in existence that is honed to 13000 grit!






The mouth has clearance ...






But in spite of all this, the plane would not make shavings!






So I pulled the chip breaker back again ..






... and took a slightly deeper shaving than before. Now you see why I do not do this with Stanley planes ...






It is not a pretty sight. Sigh.

OK, out came the LN with a 55 degree frog I used before. Keep in mind that the Veritas SBUS, with a 62 degree cutting angle, produced a better finish yesterday.






The finish is clearly better to the touch. 

There needs to be a summing up of the three experimental sessions: I think that the bottom line is that I just cannot get the chip breaker effect on this piece of Jarrah. By contrast, I was able to achieve a better finish with a 55 degree LN #3, and decent finish with a Veritas SBUS with 62 degree cutting angle. Perhaps some types of wood will not respond to changes of chip breaker projection, and the case for high cutting angles remains the alternative?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2012)

It's impossible to capture the quality of a woodsurface on photo, so you will have to believe my words for it.

I picked up an offcut of quarter sawn jatoba. It has a ribbonstripe, meaning the grain runs back and forth among each grow ring. Planing with the grain and against in the same little bit of wood. It has given me only greave when trying to handplane in the past, even with my infill plane.

This piece was still rough sawn. After some tinckering with the capiron setting, and after resharpening the blade, I managed to produce a flawless surface within minutes with this simple wooden smoother. First I took rather thick shavings (as thick as possible while still being able to push the plane). That produced some tearout. Then I lightened the cut and cleaned it up.






I do get clogging too from time to time too. It really isn't an easy technique and needs some time to master. For us simple beginers with this technique the limit seems to be somewhere between jatoba and jarah. I'm sure Warren Mickley would have no troubles with your piece of wood, Derek. I can only advice you to start with more mundane wood and get some miles under the belt. Then when you gain experience you can move uo the ladder of difficult woods.

At the other hand, a steep pitch is a valid technique too, even in a historic perspective. High angle planes have always been around. And honing a backbevel has been described in old literature too.


----------



## Philly (21 May 2012)

I've been following this discussion (and similar ones on other forums) with interest. I found the video quite useful to watch and, although it doesn't feature a "mouth" and keeps the bed angle constant at 40 degrees, it spurred me to try out this "ultra-tight chipbreaker" thing.
For a test bed I used a Stanley #3, a fairly recent example with black plastic handles. The sole had been lapped a couple years ago but she was a bit of a dog. The original iron was ground and sharpened to 10K on waterstones and the chipbreaker flattened and the leading edge given a "microbevel" at 80 degrees. The mouth was opened out to 3mm - fine for a Jack but not for a smoother! Still, I thought that would ape the video quite closely.






First I tried hard maple - this particular piece had grain that reversed from the middle, making for a decent test. Using a regular bench plane and a sharp iron you got a small amount of tearout. I set the chipbreaker 0.45mm from the edge (using stacked feeler gauges sat on the end of the chipbreaker - this was moved forward until the cutting edge just disappeared behind the feelers) Taking some shavings (about 2 thou thick) I got tearout and it left a nasty surface. It also "felt" rough as I planed. Hmm....
I moved the chipbreaker closer to 0.2mm from the edge and took some shavings. Much happier! The surface was left like glass, very impressed. I then planed from the opposite end of the board and got the same results - now very impressed. Remember, this is a nasty cheap Stanley! Finally I moved the chipbreaker forward again to 0.1mm and got some weird shavings. Fine, but it was obvious the lane was not happy. So I moved it back to 0.2mm and everything was cool again.
My next test was on some softwood. I used a piece of B+Q's delightful pine, absolute rubbish piece of stuff with lots of knots. The Stanley sailed though the lot leaving a shining surface. I repeated from the opposite end of the board and got the same result - very impressive! When planing knots you usually get tear-out on the "far-side" of each knot, but not this time.

I want to do some more testing but my initial thoughts are: Getting the chipbreaker in the right place is deal breaker. Too close or far and it doesn't happen but getting it in the "zone" was fairly easy. Watch the shavings the plane makes - when its "right" the shavings seem to come straight up out of the throat in a straight shaving. The tightness of the mouth seems to be taken out of the equation when the chipbreaker is so close to the mouth.
My next avenue is how thick a shaving you can take without tear-out. Back to the bench....
Philly


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 May 2012)

That's encouraging Philly. I will next plane less mongrel type wood, concentrating on improving surface quality. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Corneel (22 May 2012)

Nice isn't it? Does this mean you are going to offer planes wIth capirons in the future?


----------



## Philly (22 May 2012)

Thanks Derek! Still lots of variables to test. At the moment I'm of the mind that for tough interlocked stuff a high angle plane works better but that for softer stuff the chipbreaker thing can offer a real benefit, which kind of ties in with historical tool choices.
Corneel - it depends how things pan out, but maybe 
Chees
Phil


----------



## bugbear (22 May 2012)

It's obvious from experience down the centuries that there are many ways to improve plane performance. What is not completely known is HOW they all work, and how they interact.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (22 May 2012)

Well, one thing for sure, tight mouths and close chipbreaker settings don't mix very well. A tight mouth is of course a valid method to reduce tear out too. But it's an expensive solution, and in the case of wooden planes, it has a short life. The same goes for high bedding angles, they are rare and/or expensive. A shortcut into higher bedding angles is the backbevel of course.

But this is not about one method against the other. It is about getting the maximum performance from the planes that are so abundant on the market, 45 degree double iron planes. Wood or iron, new or old, they are all around us. It's very valuable to know how to use them to the max. And knowing how your Stanley works, doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to use your Lie Nielsen bevel up smoother anymore. 

Phil, it would be great if you could offer double iron planes. For some reason all the "boutique" plane makers seem to choose to make the high angle, tight mouth planes. It would give you more metal work of course.


----------



## ac445ab (22 May 2012)

These results are very interesting and although the wood specie seems to influence the outcome, the chipbreaker setting could help us to manage difficult woods. 
Thank you for taking time to do and show this. =D> 

Ciao, 
Giuliano


----------



## GazPal (22 May 2012)

Samples taken from among timber species always vary and variation in technique tends to be the best approach toward taming and manipulating stock - regardless of whether dealing with hard or softwoods and their many quirks. This doesn't dictate a need to possess masses of tools, but it does dictate a genuine need to practise sharpening and hand tool manipulation as thoroughly and often as possible. It's genuinely a case of 75% theoretical and 25% practical knowledge in learning and practicing most craft activities.

The reason behind the above statement is that no one method holds true in all instances and even if minimal clearance - between cap iron and leading (Cutting iron) edge - is found to work on some work samples, it won't work on all. Be prepared to vary tool settings and technique and you'll begin to learn the method/techniques and approach to tool set-up that stood our forebears in good stead for so many hundreds of years.

So much has and will be said of certain settings helping improve a plane's performance, but so much boils down to the law of averages and - whilst the comparatively recent fascination with micron-fine iron:cap iron adjustments prevail - all too many seem to forget this discovery is neither a new or recent one. One simple - yet fundamental - drawback with the finesse settings currently being espoused are the limitations upon tool use once it becomes so specialised. Another is the fact that - once set - problems can and will be encountered with regard to depth of cut and binding when material condition is less than optimally suited to such a set-up. That is unless one opts for multiple tool use, or accumulating a set of iron:cap iron configurations to be swapped at will depending upon materials being worked. Not necessarily a good thing if a worker is operating within a tight budget.


----------



## Jeff Gorman (24 May 2012)

Coming very very late into this fascinating discussion, may I venture the following?

On my web site at http://tinyurl.com/5s9dwct there's a pic of an actual plane blade in a normal situation in which the cap iron is very close to the edge and set so that the face of the cap iron actually projects below the surface of the sole. 

I think it makes the point that such a close setting limits the depth setting of the blade to an almost impractical extent. The projection normal to the sole (if my trig is correct) will have to be about seven-tenth of the actual set-back distance. 

It looks as though the wood fibres have been compressed and distorted and then detached from the parent wood, producing a shaving resembling the type III shaving described on page 149, fig 4 of Hoadley's 'Understanding Wood'.

There's some unfinished work on the parent page http://tinyurl.com/247vmjq.

I have quite a few microscope pics of some mahogany planed against the grain, waiting time and motivation to sort out, edit and put up. I also should make some pics with a variety of shaving aperture settings and different timbers. 

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


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (24 May 2012)

Hi Jeff

Wonderful images in the first link!

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Corneel (24 May 2012)

Jeff, nice pictures indeed. You went to great lengths to find out what happens at the edge! You can see that tight mouths and steep angles are also methods to reduce tear out.

In the pictures on this page I see two things worth mentioning.

- In none of the pictures you use the sole of the plane to support the iron. You loose support at the most critical place, just behind the edge.

- I only see a picture with a close capiron, but it's set way too deep, thus disturbing the cut. Do you also have pictures where the capiron is set at a more reasonable position, just a bit higher then the sole, and what happens then?


----------



## ac445ab (24 May 2012)

Corneel":1t60niet said:


> - I only see a picture with a close capiron, but it's set way too deep, thus disturbing the cut


 
This could be the reason for which Philly had troubles with 0,1 mm cap iron setting.... 



Philly":1t60niet said:


> my initial thoughts are: Getting the chipbreaker in the right place is deal breaker. Too close or far and it doesn't happen but getting it in the "zone" was fairly easy


 
I suggest to name this zone...the "Philly's Zone" :mrgreen:


----------



## Philly (25 May 2012)

Jeff's photo's and comments make a good point - with the CB set so close it has to limit the depth of cut. It also shows why you can't have a really tight mouth as there is nowhere for the shavings to go.
I've been using the Stanley on various bits of wood to see how it responds and have had good results on a wide range of stuff. With interlocked grain it worked pretty well, although not as well as a high angle blade/tight mouth combo. With softwoods it excelled. I moved the CB back to a "normal" position (about 1.5mm) and got tearout.
Yesterday I decided to use a Clifton to see if a better built plane would perform better on the harder woods - I'll be back with my results later.

Oh, and one thing I noticed - with the CB in the "zone" the plane left the surface of the timber shining and glassy. I believe this is what the video was all about as improving the finished surface was the goal - it certainly seems to have achieved it.
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Corneel (25 May 2012)

Yes, tight mouth and close chipbreaker don't mix very well. You'll have to choose one or the other. When you pull the frog back, you will get better support of the blade as well, another advantage.

The best results until now I get with the chipbreaker set about 0.2 to 0.3 mm. Much closer and I run into troubles with the small camber on my smoother and jointer blade. That leaves plenty of adjustment range from fluffy shavings to pretty stiff 0.2mm ones. When you want to take even thicker shavings, indeed you will have to move the chipbreaker. Overall I find this is a very usefull range. I think Jeff's argument is a non-issue in practical use of the chip breaker.

Until now most of the discussion is about smoothers. But it works very well on jointers too! It's nice to know, when you adjust a drawer to a case for example, that you are not going to rip a chunck out of that critical surface.


----------



## Jeff Gorman (25 May 2012)

Corneel wrote:

I think Jeff's argument is a non-issue in practical use of the chip breaker.

Agreed, it is a rather academic point but I think it counters the argument in favour of an extremely fine CI setback that I think was made in the original set of the Prof's pics (made of cutter action without taking the rest of the plane's structure into account).

Jeff
[email protected]


----------



## Corneel (25 May 2012)

Yes 0.1mm is really pushing it. Their conclusion at the end was, with a steeper edge on the capiron you can get away with 0.3mm.


----------



## Jeff Gorman (25 May 2012)

Corneel write:

>Yes 0.1mm is really pushing it. Their conclusion at the end was, with a steeper edge on the capiron you can get away with 0.3mm.<

If my trig is correct, this means that we can get a set of 0.21 mm before the face of the CI protrudes.
This ought to allow a set of 8.3thou - A shaving this thick will take some pushing.

Jeff
[email protected]


----------



## Corneel (25 May 2012)

Jeff Gorman":1jk6nzbw said:


> Corneel write:
> 
> >Yes 0.1mm is really pushing it. Their conclusion at the end was, with a steeper edge on the capiron you can get away with 0.3mm.<
> 
> ...



Indeed. Especially because you can really feel the work of the capiron. That energy must be supplied by the user pushing the plane. You can really note the difference. The same kind of extra force you feel in a high angle plane.


----------



## Philly (25 May 2012)

Yes, I'd agree with you there - it really takes some pushing with CB close, even on a reasonable shaving. 
Jeff - have you given this exercise a try yet? I had a 3mm wide mouth and got excellent results, so I wonder if a combination of tight mouth and not quite so close chipbreaker will yield similar results?
Philly


----------



## Jeff Gorman (25 May 2012)

Philly wrote:

I wonder if a combination of tight mouth and not quite so close chipbreaker will yield similar results?

I think so. I reckon that the tight 'mouth' is the secret. The next best is a high angle. 

Please see the demonstration on http://tinyurl.com/2gyb294 where the shaving aperture was 3thou on a cheap Record 'Special Production' plane with a tuned-up sole. The capiron was set back at a usual couple of millimeters or so.

I fear that I made this ages ago to indicate that you don't really need a very expensive Bailey type plane to get such results.

Jeff
[email protected]


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2012)

Interesting thread. The consensus seems to be that almost any old plane/blade will do it on difficult grain if properly set up. The other essential, from Jeff's site; "very frequent re-sharpening is necessary". Makes sense to me, maybe time to ebay my one posh plane. 
I'm out of it as I'm still staggering about on crutches so planing is not possible - I can't wait to have a go!


----------



## Racers (25 May 2012)

Hi, Jacob

You could sit down and pull the plane towards you like the Japanese do.


Pete


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 May 2012)

Jacob":bubc72tw said:


> maybe time to ebay my one posh plane.



I'd hang on to it if I were you, Jacob. What's clear from this thread (and one's own experience) is that different woods require different set-ups, so having various planes set up for different situations is helpful (and a great time saver).

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (25 May 2012)

Paul Chapman":3qr3y27m said:


> Jacob":3qr3y27m said:
> 
> 
> > maybe time to ebay my one posh plane.
> ...


Anyone care to hazard a set up for the Wood from Hell? :-" :mrgreen: :lol: - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 May 2012)

woodbloke":5yhiwqvd said:


> Anyone care to hazard a set up for the Wood from Hell? :-" :mrgreen: :lol:



A Veritas #80 scraper












Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2012)

woodbloke":3kkar81p said:


> Paul Chapman":3kkar81p said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3kkar81p said:
> ...


ROS


----------



## woodbloke (25 May 2012)

For those unfamiliar with the notorious WfH, it's almost impossible to plane with anything, let alone any fancy set up with conventional irons...Paul, myself and others have tried! The only person who tamed it was the LN guy at the last West Dean event who went for a low angle LN jack (out of all the LN planes on his bench) I once gave a piece to Matt from WH and asked him to have a go...he eventually did it and returned the piece to me *half* the thickness as it had taken him that long to get a decent surface (with Cliffis) 
You never know, some lucky soul might get a lump as a Secret Santa prezzi! :lol: - Rob


----------



## David C (25 May 2012)

Rob,

I seem to remember having a go at this with a back bevel giving an EP of about 70 degrees. Not sure if it was Oxford or Cressing temple.

Wish mine was more accesible. It is a wide plank, about 15 feet long, at the bottom of a sizeable pile. Could do with a small piece to try the ultra close capiron......

best wishes,
David


----------



## woodbloke (26 May 2012)

David C":34dc8qyl said:


> Could do with a small piece to try the ultra close capiron......
> 
> best wishes,
> David



David, you may find a little parcel in the post shortly :wink: - Rob


----------



## David C (26 May 2012)

Thank you Rob, much appreciated !

David


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (26 May 2012)

*Chip breaker experiment: session four*

*Rationale*

The conclusion after Session Three was (1) I had either not found the sweet spot for the very hard Jarrah I was planing, or (2) the effect of a chip breaker deflecting shavings is wood dependent. 

*Session Four*

The plane is an unmodified Stanley #604 with LN chipbreaker (given a 70 micro bevel and slightly cambered) and a custom M4 blade.

This time around I chose a piece of Tasmanian Oak. For non-Aussies, this is (in my experience) similar in density to USA White Oak and also to European Oak. Tassie Oak is not an oak, however, it is a eucalypt. As such, it tends to be a little more interlocked. This piece was fairly typical.

How would I know if I was in the "sweet spot"? Well the video shows the shavings coming off the chip breaker _vertically_. This is why I have begun to think of the chip breaker (never again a "cap iron"!) as a "chip bender". 

I set the chip breaker at a modest 0.3 (keep in mind that the chip breaker readings are slightly larger at the edge of the blade compared to the centre of the blade) ...






The mouth was "wide" at about 1mm. No effort was made to close it down as I normally would do for a smoother.






Here is the result ..











This was a good result. In the background you can see shavings from a chip breaker set back about 3mm. Those shavings are curled.






Of particular relevance here is that the planing took place _into_ the grain.






The surface result was also superior - a shiny, clear and tear-out free finish ...






A close up around the knot reveals the absence of tear out ...






The second part of this session now moved to closing up the chip breaker to about 0.1 - 0.2mm ..






The result of this was very similar to Session 3, where the plane struggled to cut.






Clearly the chip breaker is now too close. However this is further evidence that it has a significant effect on the way the plane cuts.

For Part 3 the chip breaker was returned to the position of Part 1 ..






That particularly nasty piece of Jarrah (which is almost like end grain in the one section) was brought back. The #604 proceeded to plane this. The result was a little better than on the previous occasion, but not really that noticeably so. The board had some straight grained sections that were softer, and where the plane met this area, the shavings where long and straight. The surface quality was poor.






The LN #3 (with 55 degree frog, chip breaker set back 3mm) had its turn. The result was the same as before: decent surface to the touch, a noticeable improvement over the common angle #604 ...






The chip breaker in the LN was now adjusted to 0.3mm and the board planed again. The result was a significant improvement in the quality of the surface ..






This was repeated with the Veritas Small BU Smoother (with a 62 degree cutting angle). In the previous experiment the SBUS left a clearly better surface than the 55 degree LN #3. This time the SBUS was shaded ...






Neither LN nor SBUS produced shavings that were vertical. THis must be due to the high cutting angle.

*Conclusions*

There does appear to be a performance difference in the woods used thus far, indicating that the technique is likely to be wood dependent. The chipbreaker does, nevertheless, appear to be capable of improving the performance regardless of the wood type. However cutting angle does play a significant part as well, with a higher cutting angle still seen to be important for hard woods with interlocked grain.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Philly (26 May 2012)

Interesting results, Derek! I'm glad to see you got the "straight" shavings when the Cb was in the zone.
How tight was the mouth on the 55 degree LN test?
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (26 May 2012)

Hi Philly

With the exception of the chip breaker, the LN was set up as I would usually do for smoothing: as tight a mouth as possible that would permit shavings to flow smoothly. 

Of course, at 55 degrees, the mouth is almost irrelevant.

The chip breaker on the LN was also left stock.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Racers (27 May 2012)

Hi, Chaps

I had a go with a finely set chip breaker on some Silver Birch burr.






Its soft stuff with lots of reversing grain, I used a Record N03 with a LN blade and breaker in. 
The best way to adjust it I found was to slightly tighten up the cap screw, and tap the breaker forward with the leaver cap.
It worked well but I still had some areas of tearout, I didn't check how sharp the blade was  
I got nice straight shavings.

Pete


----------

