# Plane Blade Camber



## Joe (29 Nov 2007)

I'm going bananas trying to put a slight camber on my No.6 plane blade - no matter how hard I try I always end up with a concave profile. I am using waterstones a little wider than the blade (which I flatten frequently on a Norton flattening stone) and a Veritas Mk2 Jig with camber roller. My only thought is that I'm wearing the the surface of the stones into a convex profile. If anyone can offer any advice on this matter I'd be very grateful.


----------



## George_N (29 Nov 2007)

It sounds like you are "dubbing" the edges of your water stone as you attempt to keep it flat, creating a convex surface. How flat is your flattening stone?


----------



## matthewwh (30 Nov 2007)

Hi Joe,

Welcome to the forum.

I'm sure Mr Charlesworth will wade in shortly -and what he doesn't know about cambered plane irons probably isn't worth knowing. If you can still find a copy of this November's F&C there is a fantastic article about this very subject. But in the meantime here's my fourpennerth. 

Installing a slight camber is actually qute a big metal removal job in waterstone terms but it can be done. From your description and symptoms it sounds as though you are using honing techniques and materials to do a grinding job. If it's any consolation I did exactly the same when I first started using waterstones, lots of mess, lots of furrowed brows and pipper all progress! Once you take a step back you realise what you are doing it all becomes clear; you wouldn't want shorten a board by four feet with a shooting board and a block plane, but (if I'm right) that is the equivalent of what you are doing.

First off I would highly recommend using some sort of grinder for this operation, be it a water cooled grinding wheel like the Tormek, or a belt based system like the Sorby Pro-Edge. If you have a friend who has one of these machines and can install a camber for you in 10 minutes it's well worth the postage back and forth and a couple of pints for all the effort it will save you. People describe waterstones as being 'fast' which can be confusing if taken out of context. An olympic sprinter is 'fast', but if you want to run a marathon, then the best tool for the job is a motorbike.

If you do want to do it by hand, go for a very coarse stone 240 - 250 grit and work one side of the blade at a time along the centre of the stone. If you use the honing guide the blade will naturally follow an arc giving you a wear pattern like this )( on the surface of the stone. If you do it freehand, try to keep the wear pattern straight ll. 

Once you have two well established triangular facets on either side, you need to straighten up the groove in your waterstone (if necessary) so that it looks like this l l rather than this )( A large cardboard mailing tube with some 80 grit wrapped around it is your best friend for this job. Now work the blade straight along the groove, using lots of pressure and firm positive pull strokes - avoid the urge to scrub back and forth like a washerwoman as this will give you a bevel that is rounded in both planes. Waterstones are all about slow, intentional, considered strokes.

Once the facets have melted into each other and you have a smooth continuous curve, carefully remove the burr, don't use the coarse stone for this, try drawing the upturned blade onto a piece of scrap hardwood to bend back the burr without scratching the polised back of the blade. You can now go back to your honing setup and polish a microbevel on the edge.


----------



## David C (30 Nov 2007)

Joe,

Are you trying to work with a single bevel? I e. do you have separate grinding and honing angles.

What grade of waterstone are you using?

A strip of plastic file material along one edge of the stone. will prevent honing on that side and ensure that the blade is tilted. swap sides later and do the same to other edge.

David


----------



## woodbloke (30 Nov 2007)

Joe":2pccxxiy said:


> I'm going bananas trying to put a slight camber on my No.6 plane blade - no matter how hard I try I always end up with a concave profile. I am using waterstones a little wider than the blade (which I flatten frequently on a Norton flattening stone) and a Veritas Mk2 Jig with camber roller. My only thought is that I'm wearing the the surface of the stones into a convex profile. If anyone can offer any advice on this matter I'd be very grateful.


Joe - welcome to the forum, here's my input on this one tho' you'll receive a lot of conflicting advice on this topic. I gave up using waterstones *long *ago simply because they go out of shape at the drop of a hat _unless_ you are super-regimented in your stone flattening procedures. I now use the DMT stones which remain flat and hence are much easier (and far less messy) to use. I also use a MrC modified Eclipse clone honing guide which is very simple to use (simple is always good IMO) and which has a narrow roller. This makes it very easy indeed to put a slight camber on the blade by simply altering the pressure on your forefingers as you hone...press down on one side and then the other. The cambered bevel is honed at 33deg on the green DMT and then a micro bevel at 35deg is honed using a Spyderco 10000g ceramic stone, which will also stay flat. Mr C's ruler trick is used at both stages to refine the back of the blade. A cambered edge is not difficult to achieve but I would have thought well nigh impossible with a concave waterstone - Rob


----------



## bugbear (30 Nov 2007)

Joe":1ny2q6rq said:


> I'm going bananas trying to put a slight camber on my No.6 plane blade - no matter how hard I try I always end up with a concave profile. I am using waterstones a little wider than the blade (which I flatten frequently on a Norton flattening stone) and a Veritas Mk2 Jig with camber roller. My only thought is that I'm wearing the the surface of the stones into a convex profile. If anyone can offer any advice on this matter I'd be very grateful.



Having read the other responses, I have a question.

How much (in whatever terms you're happy with) of a camber do you want?

The "normal" range goes from "enough that shavings don't leave ridges when smoothing" though "enough to make corrections when edge jointing" up to "I want to hack furrows out of stock when thicknessing".

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (30 Nov 2007)

Hi Joe,

I second what Woodbloke says. Diamond stone (with oil not water), Eclipse-style honing guide and slight pressure on each side of the blade will give you the slight camber you are after. I also use the Veritas Mk2 with cambered roller but only for scrub plane blades which have a far more pronounced camber - which is not what I think you are after.

I finish my blades on a leather strop for a super-polished finish although Rob reckons the ceramic stone is even better.......

Cheers :wink: 

Paul

PS If you also have the straight roller with your Veritas honing guide, I'd be inclined to try that, but putting pressure on the blade each side near the cutting edge with your finger. It's easier with the Eclipse-style jig and its narrower roller, but should still be possible with the Veritas.


----------



## tnimble (30 Nov 2007)

With the Veritas MKII camber roller it is possible to control the amount of camber placed on the blade from a very slight camber to a to a camber for hogging wood with your fore plane.

To only create or maintain a slight camber on the blade gently press just off centre on both sides.

The further you press away from the centre of the blade (along with more grinding time) the more aggressive camber can be created.

To create a nice camber start grinding on dead centre till at least establish a good bevel in the middle. Then repeatedly start working your way outwards using an increased amount of strokes on the stone. See it as a set of grindings just like a set of shavings explained in David C's DVD on planing boards wider then the planes blade.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (30 Nov 2007)

Joe

BB's question is very pertinent - if you are wishing to turn the plane into a scrub, then I would use a template to mark out the camber and grind it first on a belt sander or bench grinder. If you are seeking a slight camber ala a smoother, then you are only going to remove a shaving's worth at the corners. The latter can be easily done on waterstones. I am going to assume that you seek to do the latter.

For bevel down blades I will hollow grind first and then freehand this on my (hard) Shaptons. I do not see any problem using the softer Kings, which I also own. If you prefer to use a honing guide, try either the Eclipse or the LV Mk II with the camber wheel.

I follow a similar, but simplified, version of David Charlesworth's "cambering by numbers" (which is my name for it). 

Simply put, start with a wire edge on a straight bevel using a lowish grit, say King 800 waterstone or Shapton 1000. Then remove the wire edge on your finish stone (say 8000 grit). It is important to remove the wire edge after each 'stone. This gives you a better idea of what the blade is doing.

Now focus on one outer corner (place pressure directly over this area and off the other side) and count the number of strokes it takes to get a wire edge there. The thickness of the wire edge will help you decide how much you have bevel you have removed. Now do the same on the other corner, using the same number of strokes. Remove the wire edge on your finish stone. 

Now you go to your next stone. If I was using Shaptons I'd go 1000/5000/8000/12000 or Kings at 800/1200/8000. 

On the next 'stone hone the centre section of the blade and count how many strokes it takes to get a fine wire edge. Then use the same number of strokes at each corner. Remove the wire edge after each stone. 

Proceed to next stone, etc. 

I usually finish on a leather strop. 

Regards from Perth 

Derek


----------



## Joe (30 Nov 2007)

Thank you to everyone for so much interesting, detailed and useful advice. First off, in response to George, it transpires that my "flattening" stone has a concave surface. Obviously this isn't helpful. In reply to David's question, I am honing a secondary bevel of 30 degrees followed by a slightly higher-angled micro bevel using the Veritas jig's facility for doing this. I am using 800, 1000 and 4000 grit stones followed by a leather strop.

I am not an experienced wood worker, I am an artist making wooden patterns for casting into plaster in order to make wall mounted reliefs (although I'm thinking of getting into box making). This involves dimensioning timber initially with a bandsaw before final dimensioning and squaring with my plane (I don't have a planer/thicknesser) either on my bench top or on a shooting board. I need a fine surface finish because the moulds I make will replicate any defects. My wish to camber my plane blade comes from trying to learn the techniques demonstrated in David's DVD about preparing stock - so the answer to Bugbear's question would be ""enough to make corrections when edge jointing" I guess.

Thanks again

Joel


----------



## Joe (30 Nov 2007)

Sorry, I meant to say I'm using 800, 1200 and 4000 grit.


----------



## Joe (30 Nov 2007)

I really shouldn't try and post whilst cooking the kids' supper. They're 800, 1200 and 6000 stones!


----------



## tnimble (30 Nov 2007)

O that case a very light camber is enough. Use the method of putting on a straight wire edge,, remove the edge on a fine stone. Then move to pressure on ne side, and count the passed need to create a wire edge. Do this again for the other side. Move to a finer stone repeat the same thing.


I'm interested in your work with the moulds you make. Any change on some piccys and work in progress?


----------



## Joe (30 Nov 2007)

Ta, I've not tried removing the wire edge between stones. I'll give that a go.

If you want to see some pictures you can visit my pages at the axis artists website
http://www.axisweb.org/artist/joelmarshall


----------



## David C (1 Dec 2007)

I have never found the Japanese stone flattening stones to be remotely flat.

The Norton one can be flattened fairly easily but does not stay flat for long. Flattening on wet & dry on glass is a good method which leaves the waterstones minutely convex. Convex is infinitely preferable to concave.

My other advice is to keep the 800 grit bevel as narrow as possible by frequent regrinding (which I like to do at 23 or 25 degrees. The grinding does not reach the edge but leaves a minute sliver of the 800 grit bevel.

When 800 bevel is narrow it is easy to shape for small camber. Wide 800g bevels are much more difficult to reshape.

David


----------



## bugbear (3 Dec 2007)

Joe":3avlteyf said:


> I really shouldn't try and post whilst cooking the kids' supper. They're 800, 1200 and 6000 stones!



Psst; try the "edit" button for small changes to posts.

BugBear


----------



## adrian (3 Dec 2007)

I'm also interested in cambering my blade enough to use the techniques described in Charlesworth's book and DVD for face and edge preparation. A few messages up someone said that for this a "very light" camber would suffice. However, in the book, Charlesworth recommends that the edge of the blade be 0.25 mm below the center. I'm having a really tough time measuring the camber on my blade, but I have a feeling that 0.25 mm (0.01 inch) is bigger than "very light". 

I worked my blade until I could see a gap between the edge and a straight edge. This didn't take a particularly long time on the shapton #1000 with a 1mm bevel. I don't know how big that gap is, however; I'm pretty sure it's a lot smaller than 0.25 mm. And when I took an edge shaving on a piece of scrap it appeared to be the same thickness across its width. And I can't seem to get the plane (Veritas #5 1/4) adjusted so that it cuts in the center and doesn't cut at the edge. All of these things have lead me to suspect that my very light camber is insufficient. 

So how much camber is actually necessary for different tasks assuming a plane with a 45 degree bedding angle? How do you tell when the required camber has been achieved? 

Why also is it better for the stones to be convex than concave? I sharpened for years with concave stones and my blades came out cambered without all this effort. (I didn't know what was going on. Perhaps the resulting convex backs weren't ideal. :? ) In fact, you can even buy a set of concave diamond plates to use for shaping a camber (promoted by Toshio Odate) along with a convex plate to use for making your waterstones concave. Odate apparently prefers a smaller camber as these plates are only concave to 0.0025 in = 0.06 mm over their 3 inch width.


----------



## tnimble (3 Dec 2007)

A very light camber is indeed somewhere in the range of a quarter of a mm. A heavy camber for instance required for a bevel up jack is more in the range of to a centimetre difference between sides and centre.


----------



## adrian (3 Dec 2007)

It looks like the lower end of your recommended camber range was missing from your post. A centimetre camber sounds like the shape suggested for scrub planes. If I wanted to use my bevel up jack plane for final flattening and edge jointing I expect I'd want the camber to be about 3.5 times the camber for a bevel down plane (based on the bedding angle of 12 degrees instead of 45 degrees). It would probably take quite a while to establish a 0.85 mm camber with the 1000 grit stone.


----------



## Paul Chapman (3 Dec 2007)

adrian":3dz1c060 said:


> I'm having a really tough time measuring the camber on my blade



Do people really try to measure this :? :? 

Just sight along the sole as you lower the blade and, if it has a camber, you will see the centre project before the egdes do. If you lower the blade so that just the centre projects, you will find that just the centre of the blade cuts (ie very fine shavings). However, if you lower the blade far enough so that the edges of the blade project as well, you will get full width, quite thick, shavings.

For a normal, bevel-down plane you need only a very slight camber - far less than I would attempt to measure (not that I've ever attempted to measure the camber on a blade).

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## newt (3 Dec 2007)

I agree with Paul. However if you really want to measure, why not take a full width shaving and then measure the thickness at the centre of the shaving, and then the edge, a simple calculation will provide the information. :lol:


----------



## David C (3 Dec 2007)

For the squaring of edges I like a camber which relates closely to the thickness of an average business card.

After shaping on an 800 stone, offer the edge, (vertically) up to a flat surface, and judge the light gap at the edges with a couple of small shims of card. My card is about 10 to 12 thousandths of an inch thick or 0.25 to 0.3 mm thick.

For wide surface smoothing the camber can be much less pronounced, maybe half of the above or even less. 

What about thick good quality writing paper as a measuring shim. 
Reasonable quality paper is about 0.1mm thick or 4 thou".

best wishes,
David


----------



## woodbloke (3 Dec 2007)

Just to compound the issue :? a camber on a bevel up blade will be much less pronounced_ in use_ as the it will be usually seated at 12deg on the plane bed, so in order to have the same sort of effect as a bevel down iron it should have more of a curvature - Rob


----------



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

I did post information here on cambering a jack blade for a BU plane (in this case my LV LA Jack).

I settled on a radius of 8 1/2". 

Here is the profile in the mouth of the LA Jack:







The shavings are about 2" wide and effectively 1/32" thick.






Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (4 Dec 2007)

David C":3cudouxc said:


> For the squaring of edges I like a camber which relates closely to the thickness of an average business card.
> ...
> 
> What about thick good quality writing paper as a measuring shim.
> Reasonable quality paper is about 0.1mm thick or 4 thou".



I find feeler gauges work well  

link

And really cheap (50p at car boot sales...)

BugBear


----------



## adrian (4 Dec 2007)

I'll admit that I rather like measuring stuff. But I think a lot of the drive to measure things like this comes from trying to learn from books and DVDs. 
In the DVD, Charlesworth talks about measuring plane shavings with calipers, but at one point later, he just handles the shavings and says "a thou and a half". The measurement is a substitute for hands on experience and feel. 

I have no means of replicating the setup proposed by the teacher other than measurement of some sort. Phrases like "very fine camber" aren't useful if they aren't tied down somehow. I've got a "very fine" camber---probably about 0.03 mm. Odate's special concave stones would appear to give a camber somewhat less than 0.06 mm (assuming that the curvature produced on the blade matches the stone curvature). But someone here said 0.25 mm was "very fine". This kind of confusion is cleared up by measurement--assuming I can figure out how to make the measurement. 

I calculated that an 8.5 inch radius camber on a 2 1/4" blade bedded at 12 degrees (LV LA jack) would be 0.075 inches (1.9mm). This should perform like a 0.56 mm camber would on a 45 degree bedded plane, and ought to take a full width shaving which is 1/64 inch thick. I wonder why you're seeing 1/32" instead. (I'm not sure I could take a 1/32" shaving that was 2" wide.) 

A major disadvantage of evaluating the camber by taking a shaving is that it means the blade must be fully sharpened and placed back in the plane in order to check if I've reached sufficient camber. Seems like this could really prolong the sharpening process. Of course, it does have the advantage of getting directly at the character of the shavings produced. If you do this you don't need to think too hard about your plane's bedding angle. Another issue is that this measure could get distorted by the test piece not being flat. 

Can I expect the same blade to work for both wide surface smoothing and for squaring of edges? Will the .25 mm camber work well for both tasks even if a smaller camber might be good for surface work?


----------



## David C (4 Dec 2007)

BB,

Feeler gauges very good.

Card is easy to find and does not rust or buckle, accurate enough for woodwork if measured with callipers?? ~;-)#

Adrian,

_Can I expect the same blade to work for both wide surface smoothing and for squaring of edges? Will the .25 mm camber work well for both tasks even if a smaller camber might be good for surface work?_

The short answer is yes, though scallops in wide surfaces will be slightly more pronounced than necessary. Some really like this effect.

The Odate plates require some Trigonometry to work out the camber on the blade when viewed vertically, because the blade is offered to the stone at the honing angle and the hollow is measured vertically.................clear as mud I expect.

Any slight camber is better than none, don't worry too much about the precise measurements. All that is affected is the shaving width for a particular thickness setting.

David


----------



## bugbear (5 Dec 2007)

David C":uzfc0vyw said:


> The short answer is yes, though scallops in wide surfaces will be slightly more pronounced than necessary. Some really like this effect.



I saw a table at Weald and Down that had a massively scalloped, but micro-texturally smooth top.

I made (ahem) extensive enquiries, and finally got through to the maker. I asked about his period evidence, references for this finish.

He said that curved blades used to be used, (we all knew that...), so he just did it.

He had NO (nada, zip, nothing) references for period tables finished that way, just that the tool (a highly sharpened, cambered blade) was capable of it!

BugBear (who was disillusioned)


----------



## adrian (5 Dec 2007)

David C":3q776qhk said:


> Feeler gauges very good.
> 
> Card is easy to find and does not rust or buckle, accurate enough for woodwork if measured with callipers?? ~;-)#
> 
> ...



I used a card rather than getting out my feeler gauges because they're rusting enough without being around all that water. I did, nevertheless, find it somewhat tricky to tell what was going on because if I placed my edge on a (hopefully) flat surface and held it up to the light I would see light shining through everywhere...but eventually more light at the edges. I tried to insert the card, which was about 0.2 mm thick in at the edges. The process required about 20 minutes using a 320 grit shapton stone with a "micro" bevel that was quite a bit larger than I'd like. (It was fairly clear that the 1000 grit was going to take too long.) 

I didn't have the time to actually take any shavings and see whether I can make things square and flat. (My last effort ended in frustration when I found that, while making stop shavings, the plane would not cut, yet the wood was still markedly convex. In an effort to blame the tools rather than my technique , I noted that the sole of the plane (a Clifton #7) seems to be 0.003" concave at the mouth. The Veritas seems to be flatter.) 



David C":3q776qhk said:


> The Odate plates require some Trigonometry to work out the camber on the blade when viewed vertically, because the blade is offered to the stone at the honing angle and the hollow is measured vertically.................clear as mud I expect.



Crystal clear to me. Thanks for pointing this out. I should have realized this right away. My current blade has a 30 degree bevel on it, the Odate plate has a hollow of about 0.065mm, so the size of the camber would be increased by 1/sin(30) = 2, which means about 0.13 mm. Unless the bevel angle is very small, the result is not much different.

I have been considering the "ruler trick" for the preparing the backs of plane blades. This essentially means applying a very slight (low angle) back bevel. In the presence of a camber, does one attempt to make the back bevel uniform in length across the back, which means a curved surface? Or alternatively, one could keep the blade centered (at least in theory) and establish a flat back bevel whose length would vary from small at the sides to large in the center. (This last approach would be easy to do if the back bevel were applied before the camber.) And lastly, if you do apply this back bevel, what do you do when sharpening with the blade in a jig and you want to remove the burr? You can't replicate the geometry used to establish the back bevel because the jig is in the way.


----------



## David C (6 Dec 2007)

BB,

Don't know much about history (song quote)

Textured, burnt and coloured surfaces seem to be very much the province of the American studio art movement i.e. starting in the sixties and seventies??

Mousey Thompson used adze for tops?

Adrian,
Fraid rather rushed today, cambering a blade from scratch in my system takes no more that 5 - 10 minutes, on an 800g stone.

Describing and showing the process takes nearly 1 1 /2 hours on my DVD.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## bugbear (6 Dec 2007)

David C":31mhwmeb said:


> BB,
> 
> Don't know much about history (song quote)
> 
> ...



The table (IIRC) was in the main Bayleaf building

http://www.wealddown.co.uk/quick-tour-o ... eton-4.htm

and was meant/claimed to be authentic to period, hence my disappointment.

BugBear


----------



## adrian (6 Dec 2007)

David C":5y5kc4za said:


> Fraid rather rushed today, cambering a blade from scratch in my system takes no more that 5 - 10 minutes, on an 800g stone.
> 
> Describing and showing the process takes nearly 1 1 /2 hours on my DVD.
> 
> ...



Thanks for taking the time to post here. 

I was following the method from your book---I haven't seen the DVD (but I notice that it covers in its 75 minutes a lot more than just cambering a blade). I can think of two things that would have made me slow. One is that I spent at *least* half the time trying to decide if I was done yet. The second is that my secondary bevel is about 3mm wide. I'll wager yours is much smaller than that so you have a lot less metal to remove. (I don't have a powered grinder to use to grind back the primary bevel. Doing that would have taken even longer. After a recent experience with a nick in a 42 mm chisel I've concluded that I need some sort of power grinder, but I don't yet have anything.) 

Another possible factor is that I've been flattening the 320 grit stone on a sheet of glass with lapping grit and it appears that this process leaves it slightly convex. This probably doesn't help, though I don't know if it hurts much.


----------



## adrian (7 Dec 2007)

I had a chance to test my cambered blade last night. When I was getting a 1-2 thou shaving the cut was under 1/2 inch wide. When I increased to a 3-4 thou shaving the cut was about 1 inch wide. (Note, however, that my shaving measurements seem rather uncertain. I'm planing oak that is making very crinkly shavings that are hard to measure.) 

I forged ahead and tried to flatten a board with this plane and I realized something else that might be of interest to others trying to follow the instructions in the DVD. I was trying to plane using a stop as directed. And the wood defiantly remained convex. Why? I realized after a while that an important factor is that the bottom face of my wood is concave by .5 mm or so. And it was easily able to flex under pressure. When I ignored the advice in the DVD to not squeeze the timber and instead secured it lightly at both ends and put shims under it, then all of a sudden the plane started cutting at the high spot. I'm not sure how I can support the underside to prevent flexing without squeezing the wood. (The wood is 3/4" thick.)


----------



## David C (8 Dec 2007)

You can try paper or card strips to support the middle or any place that needs support.

Alternatively do some work on the opposite side to improve registration on the bench.

Sometimes it is best to work each side alternately untill one surface sits on the bench. No long plank can be planed flat until it is sitting on the bench. The problem becomes much more acute as the work gets thinner and longer. 

This is why cabinetmakers must have flat benches......

Crinkly shaving suggest a chipbreaker front edge problem?

David


----------



## bugbear (10 Dec 2007)

David C":2zejhevn said:


> Crinkly shaving suggest a chipbreaker front edge problem?
> 
> David



Shavings always crinkle, due to the nature of the cutting process (IIRC Leonard Lee's book goes into detail).

Try measuring the LENGTH of a shaving from a 3 foot plank...

BugBear


----------



## David C (10 Dec 2007)

Thanks BB,

Well in that case there are; crinkle, degrees of crinkle and extrememe concertina.

There are certainly differences, possibly due to wood species as well.

Concertina is not good.

David


----------



## dunbarhamlin (10 Dec 2007)

I'm sorry David, at this time of year one only derides Crass Crinkle at the risk of suffering the forlorn cries of children.

:lol: 

Steve


----------



## adrian (10 Dec 2007)

The shavings I'm getting from this oak are kind of lacy, with maybe 30% of the shaving missing. The parts that are present curl up and because they are narrow, it's hard to get them into the calipers and be completely sure that I have the shaving flat and I'm not gettings a second layer of shaving. The crinkling is local. The overall character of the shavings at a larger scale is that they curl up into rolls. They're not folding back and forth like a concertina.


----------



## David C (10 Dec 2007)

Steve,

Nice one...

Adrian,

Your shavings sound fine to me. Slightly less camber should result in wider shavings. How is the surface finish on the boards?

David


----------



## adrian (11 Dec 2007)

I haven't inspected surface finish *very* closely, but it looks and feels smooth. I don't see or feel the scallops that are presumably there. 

The only remaining difficulty I have is that after a series of stop shavings, the board is slightly concave (<0.002") as desired. But if I take a set of through shavings to clean up the ends, the board becomes slightly convex (with the hump about 4 inches in from the side where the shaving starts).


----------



## tnimble (11 Dec 2007)

When taking too many through shavings the board will become convex indeed. This should not happen when taking only 1 or 2 through shavings.


----------



## adrian (11 Dec 2007)

tnimble":1vv1dk6j said:


> When taking too many through shavings the board will become convex indeed. This should not happen when taking only 1 or 2 through shavings.



I've flattened several boards without the benefit of the methods described in the DVD and I definitely noticed the tendency of the board to become convex. (In my first effort, I started with inch thick lumber and by the time I declared it flat, several hours later, it was less than 1/2" in places.) In this case, though, I am talking about taking one shaving only (to the best of my ability). Maybe I'm overlapping in some places. The board went from being about 0.0015" concave to 0.0015" convex.


----------



## tnimble (11 Dec 2007)

Try it again on a edge of a board where you take full width shavings. This way you can verify if its your technique of overlapping the shavings of a set.

If it still happens, check the sole of the plane, espacially look at the ara close to the mouth. Use a good steel rule for this that is at least the length of the plane.

I don't know how much the bump at 4" from the beginning is. But this bump could be caused by either a flatness problem of the plane just behind the blade or can be caused by the plane offered to the wood with the toe slightly upward / heel slightly downward.

Also did the plane stop when making the stop shavings?


----------



## MarcW (11 Dec 2007)

tnimble":4ned1g6e said:


> Try it again on a edge of a board where you take full width shavings. This way you can verify if its your technique of overlapping the shavings of a set.
> 
> If it still happens, check the sole of the plane, espacially look at the ara close to the mouth. Use a good steel rule for this that is at least the length of the plane.
> 
> ...



Hi all,

Another idea:

Often the tail vise is a bit lower than the bench surface. This could cause the board to depress under the weight of the plane and to jump up to a bump later on. 

If you do not clamp in the tail vise, maybe it's a depression in the surface of the workbench...

Try against a planing stop on another spot of the bench or on a piece of MDF. If the problem maintains it probably is the plane or the technique. 

David's technique is foolproof unless you make work with a plane with an uneven sole. I guess I'd check the plane's sole again with a confirmed straightedge. 

I bet on the plane.


----------



## adrian (14 Dec 2007)

MarcW":2odt6ci0 said:


> Often the tail vise is a bit lower than the bench surface. This could cause the board to depress under the weight of the plane and to jump up to a bump later on.
> 
> If you do not clamp in the tail vise, maybe it's a depression in the surface of the workbench...
> 
> Try against a planing stop on another spot of the bench or on a piece of MDF. If the problem maintains it probably is the plane or the technique.



I don't have a tail vise. The workpiece is secured in on the bench top with a bench dog at one end and the Veritas wonderdog at the other end. (The wonderdog is a clamp that fits into a dog hole.) To prevent the board from depressing under the weight of the plane, I have inserted a bunch of wooden shims. Before I deployed the shims I couldn't even get a concave surface while taking stop shavings. 



> David's technique is foolproof unless you make work with a plane with an uneven sole. I guess I'd check the plane's sole again with a confirmed straightedge.
> 
> I bet on the plane.



I checked the plane's sole against a Starrett straight edge. I found it to agree to within 0.0015". (The 0.001" but not the 0.0015" feeler would fit under the straight edge in various spots along the sole towards the middle, so the sole appears slightly concave.) Another observation is that there is a small movable piece right behind the blade which is 0.002" inset. (This has to do with mouth adjustment.) If this isn't good enough I'm not optimistic about my prospects. (The Clifton jointer, which I quit using, was worse, with a hollow of about 0.003".) What is the implication of having a slight hollow in the plane? 

I guess I should also point out that having a 0.0015" bump is better than I ever achieved in the past. I generally considered the wood flat if I got it to better than 0.004" and I didn't worry if it was convex. I could maintain concavity by cutting 1/2" off each end of the board.


----------



## MarcW (14 Dec 2007)

Adrian,

A concave sole is no good. Your bump in the board is IMO a consequence of the concave sole. In order to take a consistent shaving, the area of the sole just ahead of the mouth has to make good contact to the board. A concave sole makes good contact at the start of the planing movement and at the end when the front of the sole isn't in touch with the wood anymore. This way you're taking off most wood at the ends. A bump is the result. Try to take shaving at the same thickness or less as is the hollow of the sole. The plane will shave only at both ends, not in the middle. 

A slightly convexe sole is preferable to a hollow sole. So, don't hesitate to flatten the sole. It hasn't to be absolutely flat, just three areas, the tip, the spot before the mouth and the heel have to be aligned. The inset piece is of no importance as long as it doesn't protrude on the sole. 

I added a picture of the hollow in the width, which I took a while back. The plane I used had a slight hollow to at the beginning, a 20 minutes flattening session improved a lot.


----------



## adrian (14 Dec 2007)

I have found it difficult (impossible?) to get shavings much below about 0.0015" in the past. 

The one time I tried to flatten a plane I spent a few hours and made it less flat. (However, it started out convex, I believe.) I guess I'll have to reinvestigate the methods. 

It does seem like trying to flatten the 25" long planes presents a problem of finding a reference surface substantially longer than 25". (Even the 15" long plane is a problem.)


----------



## tnimble (14 Dec 2007)

The longer your reference surface is the faster you can flatten the sole of the plane.

However a perfect flat surface is not needed as long as that surface has no twist / wind.

When your not sure about the surface and you have a convex plane use two sheet of sand paper with about 1 to 2 third the length of the plane between them.

Then take a number of passes and remeasure the hollow in the sole of the plane. Make a guesstimate on how long you should continue this.

Remeasre the plane. If the hollow in the plane gets less but moves to the toe or the heal of the plane move presure or remove one of the sheets for a while.


----------



## Paul Kierstead (14 Dec 2007)

Random thought of the day...
So, if one has 3 planes of the same length, they could in theory make them all perfectly flat without a reference surface, just like you can do with a straightedge

In other things, I have a #6 which is kind of ridiculously convex. It can still take a very fine shaving (actually leaves a very nice finish) and actually is pretty good at jointing too. Go figure. Concave would be a whole different ballgame though.


----------



## David C (14 Dec 2007)

I find that very slight convexity is not such a bad thing in a plane.

Infinitely preferable to any concavity, of either length or width.

In nice dense Sycamore, my thinnest shavings are just over 0.0005 inch. These are for curiosity only. One to 1.5 thou is sometimes useful for fine finishing of cranky timber.

Tried to do some sums on this and decided this was not far from 12 to 15 microns?

Choice of wood species is an issue and it seems the Japanese planing masters use a special slow grown timber from the north.

best wishes
David


----------



## adrian (17 Dec 2007)

tnimble":33zsnl5v said:


> The longer your reference surface is the faster you can flatten the sole of the plane.
> 
> However a perfect flat surface is not needed as long as that surface has no twist / wind.
> 
> ...



Could you elaborate on this. The planes I've checked are concave, though I didn't check the side to side profile. (I no longer have the one that was greatly convex.) So if I have a 12" long reference and a 25" long plane I can use the reference to lap the plane? I didn't follow the description above with two sheets of sand paper. 

If I'm trying to remove a 0.0015" hollow, what grit paper would I want to start with? 

Another thing I wonder about is the tolerance of my references. I mean, I think the Starrett straight edge is flat to within 0.001", so if I observe an apparent concavity of 0.001" then perhaps it's really the straight edge that is wrong rather than the plane (?). I suppose if the goal is not to make the plane flat but to make it convex then this isn't such an issue, as long as I make it more convex than the tolerance of my reference.


----------



## bugbear (17 Dec 2007)

adrian":2a2glkrk said:


> If I'm trying to remove a 0.0015" hollow, what grit paper would I want to start with?



I prefer seperating the metal removal process from the measurement process.

I have had success with scrapers, files, and abrasive (SiC and AlZi) on small blocks.

The nice thing is, you only need a reference as big as your plane, and the reference used under low loads, so doesn't need to be killer rigid.

(a 24" long sheet of glass has a LOT of flex)

More details here:

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

BugBear


----------



## tnimble (17 Dec 2007)

adrian":1otyy9bo said:


> Could you elaborate on this. The planes I've checked are concave, though I didn't check the side to side profile. (I no longer have the one that was greatly convex.) So if I have a 12" long reference and a 25" long plane I can use the reference to lap the plane? I didn't follow the description above with two sheets of sand paper.


This is more or less the setup.




Use this only if the plane has a hollow!

Move the plane back and forth aover the two sheets. Due to the gap and the travel over it the middle of the sole is not sanded, the tips of the toe and heel have the most sanding.



> If I'm trying to remove a 0.0015" hollow, what grit paper would I want to start with?



When one would look at he particle size (the maximum amount of metal that can be removed equals the particle size) between a P320 to P400 . However the plane's metal is rather hard and this would take a fair amount of time. There fore it would be sane to start with about P80 without applying much downwards pressure and move up the grids.



> Another thing I wonder about is the tolerance of my references. I mean, I think the Starrett straight edge is flat to within 0.001", so if I observe an apparent concavity of 0.001" then perhaps it's really the straight edge that is wrong rather than the plane (?). I suppose if the goal is not to make the plane flat but to make it convex then this isn't such an issue, as long as I make it more convex than the tolerance of my reference.


When the plane is flat (but you measure a hollow) you can take very fine shavings. When the plane is slightly convex you can still take the same fine shavings. However there are some differences.

- The plane will stop making shavings when doing stop shavings a tad later
- The maximum amount of hollow is a bit more along the same amount of board lengh
- The plane tip of the toe and heal are a bit lifted off the board being planed, making it a bit easier to use on odd grain and not so flat or smooth boards.

Therefore it is better to go for a slight convexity than for a perfect flat.


----------



## adrian (17 Dec 2007)

The key picture isn't showing up.


----------



## tnimble (17 Dec 2007)

adrian":232yx0i0 said:


> The key picture isn't showing up.



All fixed, somehow the browser does not support the PNG image format with the settings I used.


----------



## adrian (17 Dec 2007)

tnimble":17r32ce6 said:


> adrian":17r32ce6 said:
> 
> 
> > Could you elaborate on this. The planes I've checked are concave, though I didn't check the side to side profile. (I no longer have the one that was greatly convex.) So if I have a 12" long reference and a 25" long plane I can use the reference to lap the plane? I didn't follow the description above with two sheets of sand paper.
> ...



This assumes implicitly a reference surface as long as the plane. If the plane is longer than the reference, it would be necessary to do one end at a time. Would that procedure be ok?


----------



## adrian (17 Dec 2007)

bugbear":zqildlz9 said:


> adrian":zqildlz9 said:
> 
> 
> > If I'm trying to remove a 0.0015" hollow, what grit paper would I want to start with?
> ...



I remember reading about this process in a set of materials by Jeff Gorman (which sadly seem to have vanished from the web). 

I suppose I'd have to try this myself to get a feel for it. I also note that a flat reference the size of the plane is needed. (Are all sheets of glass guaranteed to be flat?)

But I guess another question is whether the goal is to be "flat" or to be convex. If concave is bad then specifically seeking convexity would be desirable because otherwise you're limited by the tolerances of your reference and you can't be sure that you're not actually still concave a bit. It's not clear how to use this procedure to make the sole convex.


----------



## MarcW (17 Dec 2007)

tnimble":oxl64sdz said:


> ...This is more or less the setup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hm,

This setup will produce a convexe sole if one doesn't stop at the right moment. And the convexity might be bigger than the former concavity. I wouldn't do it. I would lap the whole sole, i.e. put wet and dry under the whole length of the sole. The high spots are at both ends. These touch the wet and dry first. You can mark with a felt pen. The markings at both ends will disappear first. Only when the spot ahead of the mouth wears no felt marking anymore the sole should be flat enough. 

I had a low angle jack plane with a convexe sole. It was very awkward to plane with it . It was not possible to take a consistent shaving over the whole length of a board. I tried to remedy and flatten the sole but I gave up. The belly was too big. What I want to say is, if the convexity is too bad, it will become a tedious job to put it right again. Pushing downwards at the same spot in the centre without rubbing the ends on the sheet is highly exhausting.


----------



## bugbear (17 Dec 2007)

adrian":61cym5op said:


> bugbear":61cym5op said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.geocities.com/plybench/flatten.html
> ...



Note that for the "traditional" so-called-lapping, your reference needs to be a good deal bigger than your plane (for good results), and rigid enough to stay accurate (as a reference) as you press down hard on the abrasive.

If the reference isn't rigid (under the working loads) accuracy it had under zero load means nothing.



> But I guess another question is whether the goal is to be "flat" or to be convex. If concave is bad then specifically seeking convexity would be desirable because otherwise you're limited by the tolerances of your reference and you can't be sure that you're not actually still concave a bit. It's not clear how to use this procedure to make the sole convex.



Most people aim for slightly convex, because it's MUCH better than any-amount-of-concave, and they can't hit "flat". This amounts to erring on the side of caution. 

This is how Lee Valley (used to?) specify their plane sole flatness; guaranteed flat within 3 thou, and never concave (so the tolerance was flat - 3 thou convex, NOT flat plus or minus 1 1/2 thou)

The approach I describe can get you to very flat indeed, and in a well controlled and predictable manner.






Attack the blue bits, re-mark, attack, repeat!

BugBear


----------



## adrian (17 Dec 2007)

bugbear":s61zdgfg said:


> This is how Lee Valley (used to?) specify their plane sole flatness; guaranteed flat within 3 thou, and never concave (so the tolerance was flat - 3 thou convex, NOT flat plus or minus 1 1/2 thou)



It appears that you have this backwards:



Rob Lee":s61zdgfg said:


> A slight correction to "concave sole" information - we make planes with flat soles, with our manufacturing tolerances only allowing concavity as a deviation from flat - as opposed a +- from flat. Then too, where you allow variance has the greatest bearing on quality. A concave variance in the sole 3" in front of the mouth will have no effect on performance - a variance at the edge of the mouth will...
> 
> Consider a corrugated sole plane - that has considerable concave variances...! Or - the back face of a japanese chisel...they still cut perfectly flat!
> 
> If the sole perimeter and a given locus around the mouth (fore and aft) is coplanar, than you'l get maximum performance. However - any amount of convexity (a bump) on sole WILL affect performance. We allow zero convexity - so what you get from us is flat to concave, and with good reason!



This is from http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/archive/index.php/t-14737.html


I was curious about the reference issue because tnimble wrote that it was possible to flatten a plane without a reference that is as long as the plane. Unless I can assume that any sheet of glass I stumble across is flat, I don't have a clear source of any flat reference that is as long as a jointer.


----------



## adrian (17 Dec 2007)

As a data point, I asked Lee Valley how flat their "glass lapping plate" is and they say it's flat to 0.01". That would seem to suggest that it's worthless for this application. But granite surface plates that are 25" long are rather expensive. (Heavy too, I'll bet.)


----------



## tnimble (17 Dec 2007)

adrian":3kj7s7a1 said:


> This assumes implicitly a reference surface as long as the plane. If the plane is longer than the reference, it would be necessary to do one end at a time. Would that procedure be ok?



Due to the gap you replace the large reference needed with technique. Technique being remeasuremnt and stopping when you are about to reach the desired shape.



MarcW":3kj7s7a1 said:


> Hm,
> 
> This setup will produce a convexe sole if one doesn't stop at the right moment.


Indeed, that the goal, replace the very long flat rerference that one doesn't have with technique. And the warning that its only to be used for concave planes.


> And the convexity might be bigger than the former concavity. I wouldn't do it. I would lap the whole sole, i.e. put wet and dry under the whole length of the sole. The high spots are at both ends. These touch the wet and dry first. You can mark with a felt pen. The markings at both ends will disappear first. Only when the spot ahead of the mouth wears no felt marking anymore the sole should be flat enough.


Only if one has a flat reference of at least a third to double the length of the plane that is flatter along that length than the accuracy of flatness to be accomplished.



> I had a low angle jack plane with a convexe sole. It was very awkward to plane with it . It was not possible to take a consistent shaving over the whole length of a board. I tried to remedy and flatten the sole but I gave up. The belly was too big. What I want to say is, if the convexity is too bad, it will become a tedious job to put it right again. Pushing downwards at the same spot in the centre without rubbing the ends on the sheet is highly exhausting.


 With a slight convexity or only convexity at the tops of the toe and or heel this problem is non-existent. Taking out a convexity on a flat surfae is not possible. The same as with any plane when taking only trough shavings will always end up with a convex board.



adrian":3kj7s7a1 said:


> bugbear":3kj7s7a1 said:
> 
> 
> > This is how Lee Valley....
> ...


A concavely iin the sole is not a problem as long as its not in front of the blade ie the mouth. Japanese planes have multiple concavelies along the length. Having concavely is different from being concave. I shall try to put up a few drawings.



adrian":3kj7s7a1 said:


> As a data point, I asked Lee Valley how flat their "glass lapping plate" is and they say it's flat to 0.01". That would seem to suggest that it's worthless for this application. But granite surface plates that are 25" long are rather expensive. (Heavy too, I'll bet.)



Its very useable for the right tsks and with correct technique. not even The perfect flat reference (if that would exist) would be 'fools proof' of producing an flat plane sole.


----------



## tnimble (17 Dec 2007)

*Concave*











The above two planes would not be able to make fine shavings (up to an extend depending on the amount of concavity) The wood fibres are not supported and pushed down.






Many Japanese planes have a sole like this (but a completely different body  and could have a bamboo or brass spring in front and or back of the blade) Since the concavities are not within a reasonable distance away from the mouth the plane can make very fine shavings. The concavities reduce friction and help to speed up flattening a board.

*Convex*






This plane would be very difficult to operate. When the plane is set to a fine shaving the plane does only make shavings at a specific balanse point. If one shifts the downward preasure slightly the plane stops making shavings.

When the plane is set to make thicker shavings the plane does a fine job when either pressing down on the toe or on the heel. If one shifts this presure to the middle the plane digs into the wood.






This plane would do a wonderful job on making fine shavings just as good as a perfectly flat plane (which does not exists) that is a bit less longer in length.


----------



## David C (17 Dec 2007)

Hooray,

The last picture represents 90% of the planes in my workshop. They work very well indeed.

This shape is inevitable when lapping on abrasive paper on a flatish surface.

(Bugbear's spot filing etc will get them flatter).

No1 is how many production planes arrive from the manufacturer and they do not work well at all. Try planing a straight edge with a fine shaving.......................................................... :-(

3 is also very good.

David C


----------



## pam niedermayer (17 Dec 2007)

Here's the main fettling page I saved from Jeff's site:

<i>To Be or Not to be A Flat Soler?
Do I need a truly flat-soled plane? If you are involved in fine woodworking that requires a tear-free finish, it is important that the front lip of the mouth can effectively press down any fibres that might tend to lift, split ahead of the cutter and tear themselves from the body of the wood before the cutter can cleanly shear them off. Close Your Mouth

If the sole is concave, or (as seems to be quite common) there is a bump just behind the mouth, obviously this cannot happen.

If the plane is required to plane straight edges, as when joining pieces to make up a panel, the sole will need to be straight from end to end.

If your plane is just for trueing the edges of doors and suchlike, you can probably manage quite well with the one you've got

Note: For a good finish, a very fine shaving aperture is also essential, but that is another story.

How to check A heavy-section, purpose-made straightedge is best, but failing this, a good quality steel rule, preferably marked British Standard 4372, is essential.

Check the edges for slight damage. Without touching the original machined edge, use a fine abrasive to remove any small nicks acquired during general use.

A pitfall Rules are likely to become somewhat bowed in their thickness. This means that unless held at right-angles to the surface under test, they will give either a false concave or convex reading, depending on the inclination away from, or towards the user. The "blade" part of a good quality combination square, which will be thicker than a normal bench rule, is less likely to have this fault. (Avoid very cheap versions, I found one to have a 0·13 mm (5 thou) error along its edge.)

For a quick first check If you are limited to only using a rule for testing, it is usually better to work by feel rather than try to lift and hold a heavy plane to the light. Grip the rule about its mid-point. On a convex surface it will swivel freely. The ends will tend to grip a concave surface and the middle part can be made to flex. (You might also find this advice of useful when preparing face sides, etc, on your wood).

More careful checking To overcome the effects of bow, hold the face dead upright against something machined 'square' such as the side of an engineer's square or accurately planed piece of wood.

In various places along the plane use feeler gauges to check for gaps between the sole and the rule.

It would be much better, however, to use a surface plate. You can improvise one.

This will be essential if the sole is to be finished by scraping. Scraping: The abrasive approach - first, and maybe the last, stage 

If you decide that your plane would justify some extra work, whether you decide to go the whole hog and scrape or not, you'll first need to abrade the sole (unless you have access to a surface grinder, of course).</i>

Pam


----------



## newt (17 Dec 2007)

tnimble":utibftjz said:


> The longer your reference surface is the faster you can flatten the sole of the plane.
> 
> However a perfect flat surface is not needed as long as that surface has no twist / wind.
> 
> ...



Your reference to using two sheets of sandpaper for a convex sole should surely be for a concave sole. Your third picture which David C says is good, and I agree, however reducing the area does not directly reduce friction. Fiction = Coefficient of friction (the material) * mass.


----------



## tnimble (18 Dec 2007)

newt":uwlbkahz said:


> Your third picture which David C says is good, and I agree, however reducing the area does not directly reduce friction. Fiction = Coefficient of friction (the material) * mass.


The coefficient of friction (COF) between to objects is depends on temperature, speed, atmosphere, as well as on the geometric properties of the interface between the materials.

Besides the kenetic and static friction the 'resistence' you encounter when moving two object along each other also depends on the molecular adhesive attraction. For materials that have a rough interface between them this force is neglectable. For materials that have a perfectly flat interface between them this force can be as high as the tensile strength.


----------



## bugbear (18 Dec 2007)

pam niedermayer":1ypyr8np said:


> Here's the main fettling page I saved from Jeff's site:



I think Jeff took those pages down due to issues of copyright. You might respect his decision in that regard.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (18 Dec 2007)

tnimble":5o7nitbg said:


> Due to the gap you replace the large reference needed with technique. Technique being remeasurement and stopping when you are about to reach the desired shape.



In this case, your measuring straight edge is the reference, and indeed, must be (nearly) as long as your plane.

In my case the distinction between "reference" and "metal remover" is a little more obvious.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (18 Dec 2007)

tnimble":1pux6ylm said:


> *Concave*
> (pictures removed)



Thanks for doing that work; it may well help some jargon ambiguity, especilly since convex versus concave depends which way up you're thinking of the plane.

BugBear


----------



## newt (18 Dec 2007)

Tnimble, I accept what you say about friction, but don't you think the reason there are concave areas on the planes sole is to make it easier to flatten, just like the Japanese chisels.


----------



## tnimble (18 Dec 2007)

newt":nfr6qqr0 said:


> Tnimble, I accept what you say about friction, but don't you think the reason there are concave areas on the planes sole is to make it easier to flatten, just like the Japanese chisels.


A good Japanese plane is delivered completely flat by its maker. If one would want to reflatten the plane after a while one has the tedious job of removing the spring(s), flattening the plane, reinserting, refitting and tensioning the spring(s). Probably a job left to done again by the plane maker, who might just make a new body to match the plane blade.

For cheaper more factory made Japanese style planes it would indeed ease flattening. But this has little to no benefit if one would flatten a wooden plane using a power jointer.


----------



## ivan (18 Dec 2007)

LV glass flat to 0.01"? must be a misprint surely? Would look like handblown! Plate glass is virtually optically flat (or it would distort like a lens) orders of magnitude flater than a plane. We used to bed plate glass onto blobs of car body filler to support* it, then we splashed out on a 600mm chinese granite plate in a sale.

*we used a concrete slab (not bendy ply)


----------



## bugbear (18 Dec 2007)

ivan":1lnwj41e said:


> We used to bed plate glass onto blobs of car body filler to support* it,
> 
> *we used a concrete slab (not bendy ply)



Yes; glass should be supported as much as possible without introducing distortion; I've seen thick pile carpet and various rubbers (e.g. router mat, car underlay) recommended.

When supporting using blobs, you have to be sure that the blobs don't shrink or move when drying/setting (or use bouncy blobs)

And, yes in the modern era, granite surface plates are (IMHO) cheap enough that all this becomes unneccesary.

BTW, for planes up to 22" (#7) I will point out that the DIAGONAL of a 12x18 surface plate is a rather helpful 21.6 inches.

BugBear


----------



## adrian (18 Dec 2007)

Lee Valley doesn't have any published specs for the glass plate. I inquired by email and they wrote back that it was 0.01". I asked again and got this reply:



lee valley":5x2ssabi said:


> Thank you for your reply. The 1/100" mentioned would be a maximum, the plate is designed to be flat as possible as you stated.





bugbear":5x2ssabi said:


> Thanks for doing that work; it may well help some jargon ambiguity, especilly since convex versus concave depends which way up you're thinking of the plane.



Actually "concave" and "convex" are independent of orientation. (But it's still nice to have those pictures.) 

Why can't plane #2 make a fine shaving, as long as you keep the toe down on the work and don't let it tip back when you get to the hollow? 

Does rubbing a plane on sandpaper on a flat surface plane #5 rather than plane #4? You would get a long flat region in the center?


----------



## pam niedermayer (18 Dec 2007)

bugbear":20j666o1 said:


> I think Jeff took those pages down due to issues of copyright. You might respect his decision in that regard.
> 
> BugBear



You know, I kept visiting the new, reformed site looking for an explanation/reason as to why Jeff removed 90% or so of his pages. From the moment Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox was able to save complete pages with some reasonable retrievability, I've been saving pages that were very important. I can't think of another site that's had more of an influence on the development of my woodworking skills than Jeff's. And while I think I understand his reasons for doing such and such a thing, I don't have a lifetime to rewrite them, draw new pictures, and the like.

I also think it's unreasonable to withhold this information from other woodworkers. So, can you please give me some accessible place to point to that has said information without copyright issues? And what's the situation vis a vis UK copyrights in the US?

Pam, who as a software developer for 34 years is a true copyright warrior and disdains people who plagiarize and/or steal music, software, and other intellectual material


----------



## pam niedermayer (18 Dec 2007)

tnimble":2fxunfjw said:


> newt":2fxunfjw said:
> 
> 
> > Tnimble, I accept what you say about friction, but don't you think the reason there are concave areas on the planes sole is to make it easier to flatten, just like the Japanese chisels.
> ...



Springs? What springs? The only spring I know of vis a vis Japanese planes involves the blade and its relationship to the bedding.

And generally one doesn't want to reflatten Japanese planes. Perhaps only tune what's worn through use. Of course, horribly abused planes would be the exception. As to replacing the dai, making them isn't rocket science; but it is much more involved than most think. The complexities are subtle.

As to shipping flat dai, some do, some don't, depends on the daiya and whether he's (yeah, afaik there are no Japanese female daiya) knows the ultimate customer. 

Pam


----------



## Paul Kierstead (19 Dec 2007)

pam niedermayer":ytuhf9m6 said:


> As to shipping flat dai, some do, some don't, depends on the daiya and whether he's (yeah, afaik there are no Japanese female daiya) knows the ultimate customer.



As a curiosity, if he knew the ultimate customer, and the customer consider himself (or was considered to be) a craftsman, would the plane be flattened or not? It seems that it might be an insult to assume the craftsman would not be flattening the plane to his own satisfaction, OTOH sending an "incomplete" plane could be considered poor form. Japanese etiquette can be complex...


----------



## pam niedermayer (19 Dec 2007)

Paul Kierstead":3hadalqf said:


> As a curiosity, if he knew the ultimate customer, and the customer consider himself (or was considered to be) a craftsman, would the plane be flattened or not? It seems that it might be an insult to assume the craftsman would not be flattening the plane to his own satisfaction, OTOH sending an "incomplete" plane could be considered poor form. Japanese etiquette can be complex...



I don't know all that much about Japanese eitquette either. I suspect it's up to the customer to specify what's desired, but few planes are sold directly from daiya to customer. Generally it's no big deal. I've been making dai for several years now, but also buying complete planes from places like Iida-san's when he has a good deal available (as in it's cheaper to buy the finished kit than the blade(s) alone). It never occurred to me to ask for a fully configured plane. I always have to fit the blade(s) and scrape the sole to suit, which suits me fine. 

However, I'd also have no compunction about buying a plane directly from Inamoto-san and asking him to configure the sole, since I know he'd do a top notch job. The first plane I bought (from Misugi) had the sole configured. This was before I knew how to make dai, and was the impetus to learn how. When I saw the recessed areas in the sole and started fitting the blades, I knew I was out of my depth, so I set the plane aside and took a dai making course from Inamoto-san.

Pam


----------



## bugbear (19 Dec 2007)

pam niedermayer":1xbriyd2 said:


> bugbear":1xbriyd2 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Jeff took those pages down due to issues of copyright. You might respect his decision in that regard.
> ...



I don't think that effects Jeff's right to withdraw them.



> I also think it's unreasonable to withhold this information from other woodworkers.


Jeff decision, not yours.



> So, can you please give me some accessible place to point to that has said information without copyright issues?



On which subject? Flattening by scraping is on my website 



> And what's the situation vis a vis UK copyrights in the US?



Are you asking legally or morally?

BugBear


----------



## tnimble (19 Dec 2007)

adrian":2xo7ccpa said:


> Actually "concave" and "convex" are independent of orientation. (But it's still nice to have those pictures.)
> 
> Why can't plane #2 make a fine shaving, as long as you keep the toe down on the work and don't let it tip back when you get to the hollow?
> Throughout the whole shaving the mouth floats above the surface. Relative to the mouth the blade has to be set outward to be able to hit any wood. Instead of slicing off a thin piece of wood you are pulling out fibres. There fore the blade has to be set even more outward making only thick shavings and hogging possible.
> ...


 The plane would be flattened, sized and shaped specifically for the intended wortk, the wood species to be planed and the craftman who requested the plane.


----------



## pam niedermayer (19 Dec 2007)

bugbear":1t22dg8x said:


> I don't think that effects Jeff's right to withdraw them.



Certainly doesn't, never claimed he had no right to withdraw them.

As to the rest of your reply, I'm not sure I violated any copyrights at all. I attributed the text to Jeff Gorman. It was in the service of education, albeit not formal. The pages were once displayed/published. I think what I did was what we in the US call fair use. It's not as if I published a site and included all Jeff's pages as my own.

Pam


----------



## adrian (19 Dec 2007)

tnimble":1zkl52hl said:


> adrian":1zkl52hl said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't plane #2 make a fine shaving, as long as you keep the toe down on the work and don't let it tip back when you get to the hollow?
> ...



I don't understand. I mean, obviously not having the support in front of the blade is bad, as you have less defence against tear-out. But say you're planing well-behaved straight grained wood in the direction of the grain. In that case, this shouldn't matter much. Wouldn't you be able to set the blade to project a tiny bit below the hollow and take a fine shaving even though you have no support in front of the mouth? 

Or are you saying that without the mouth to hold the wood down in front of the blade, the blade just pushes the wood up out of the way and kind of drags along the surface without cutting it? (Scrapers take fine shavings without any mouth so I'm not sure about this.) 




bugbear":1zkl52hl said:


> I think Jeff took those pages down due to issues of copyright. You might respect his decision in that regard.



Does that mean the material is published somewhere?


----------



## pam niedermayer (19 Dec 2007)

tnimble":tu62r3mc said:


> pam niedermayer":tu62r3mc said:
> 
> 
> > Springs? What springs? The only spring I know of vis a vis Japanese planes involves the blade and its relationship to the bedding.
> ...



Have you ever used a Japanese plane? Made a lot of shoji? Or merely watched St. Roy's show with John Reed Fox (http://stream1.unctv.org/ramgen/webdev/wws/2600/wws_2608_3.rm?usehostname)? This is such a specialized plane that it wouldn't be what most people mention in a general conversation about Japanese planes. It would be mentioned by people who make a lot of shoji. Or, to reiterate, bamboo springs wouldn't be of concern for tuning/reconditioning planes.

Pam


----------



## bugbear (19 Dec 2007)

pam niedermayer":3cbdnun3 said:


> bugbear":3cbdnun3 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that effects Jeff's right to withdraw them.
> ...



As long as you feel OK about doing something that someone you apparently respect doesn't want you to do, that's fine then...

BugBear


----------



## Paul Kierstead (19 Dec 2007)

bugbear":2ndgt7a0 said:


> As long as you feel OK about doing something that someone you apparently respect doesn't want you to do, that's fine then...



To be fair, it isn't clear that Jeff doesn't want us to reproduce any of it. The only thing that is entirely clear is that he no longer does reproduce any of it (whether by choice or force is not clear). I really wish he would put a note on the website to clear up just this sort of thing.


----------



## bugbear (19 Dec 2007)

Paul Kierstead":t1s7sph8 said:


> bugbear":t1s7sph8 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you feel OK about doing something that someone you apparently respect doesn't want you to do, that's fine then...
> ...



It's a very thorough job; the site has also been purged from the wayback machine, which does not happen by accident.



> I really wish he would put a note on the website to clear up just this sort of thing.



Agreed. I suspect it's to do with the magazine he used to work for changing hands. Much of "his" website was actually articles he'd written for magazines, and I suspect the copyright is/was assigned to the magazine, and his website existed at their discretion.

BugBear


----------



## Wiley Horne (19 Dec 2007)

Hi All,

Those convex/concave diagrams are just great. An excellent contribution! Further to Adrian's questions about why plane No. 2 won't take fine shavings.......In my experience, the concave plane 2 is frequently found in the wild when you acquire an unknown plane, especially a metal plane like a Stanley. It leads to erratic cutting and heavy tearout. Here's what happens, if the user is unsuspecting: he/she will tend to increase the blade depth until there is contact with the wood--at this point the blade is cantilevered beyond the sole more than it would be if there were positive support ahead of the blade. At some point in taking the shaving, the blade will catch in the wood and deflect backward and downward more deeply into the wood, then spring back bringing with it a large patch of tearout (the tearout runs ahead since the shaving is not held down). Then the blade will lose contact until another high place is encountered, at which time you get a repeat of the blade digging in deeply, springing back, and causing tearout.

In regard to dais, and how they are found when bought new at retail....Based on several Funahiros and Mosakus and Gomi's I have received new, in each case, the dai was relieved by just a few thousandths between front of mouth and leading edge, and similarly by a few thousandths behind the mouth, so the tail is slightly in the air and the blade is the last thing that touches the work. Most of these were Inomoto dais, but the Funahiros were by another daiya, whose mark I didn't know. Maybe this is typical of US deliveries only. I have also bought a cheap plane, and it's dai was just a mess. But the more expensive planes came with a few thousandths of relief in the dai. As delivered, this relief will leave about a 1/4" wide flat in front of the mouth: Some users will scrape this flat down to a very narrow line of contact, 1mm or less, in order to get more psi of pressure on the shaving, just ahead of the blade.

Wiley


----------



## pam niedermayer (20 Dec 2007)

Paul Kierstead":3bhwx5e0 said:


> ...
> To be fair, it isn't clear that Jeff doesn't want us to reproduce any of it. The only thing that is entirely clear is that he no longer does reproduce any of it (whether by choice or force is not clear). I really wish he would put a note on the website to clear up just this sort of thing.



Thanks, that's about all I've been able to determine, too. Without clear direction, it's difficult to know what's what. And I find it hard to believe that Jeff Gorman wants to be forgotten and/or no longer wishes to help other woodworkers.

Has he written a book?

Pam


----------



## tnimble (20 Dec 2007)

pam niedermayer":2v0xzws7 said:


> Have you ever used a Japanese plane?


I do not own any Japanese planes myself. In fact I am only just starting to master jointing and thicknessing boards with hand planes. Way back, 20 years or so when I was teached into wood and metalworking I was told hand tools are slow and inaccurate and should not be used. "Look at any old house, they build them with hand tools, everything is off level and crooked". And why would one investigate in good technique if when gluing up a table top, one can joint the edges of a few boards, glue them up in the hydraulic press and then run the entire table top through the 40" thicknesser. Why would we want to taper the legs by hand when we simply can recall the taper program on the CNC mill?

I now do own a lot of handtools and starting master most of them very well. I've no access any more to the machines I used to rely on and quickly learned that with 'hobby' power tools things aren't that easy and you miss out on much.

Currently I stick to to hat I'm familiar with myself: Stanley planes. I have done quite a few restorations backed with the knowledge of metalworking and engineering and instruction what one want to be done to a plane . Now I also know how to use them myself.



> Made a lot of shoji?


shoji are room divers / screens, right?



> Or merely watched St. Roy's show with John Reed Fox (http://stream1.unctv.org/ramgen/webdev/wws/2600/wws_2608_3.rm?usehostname)?


Love that show (thanks for mentioning the show, I just found out they've put another season online!  ). I very much enjoyed the episodes on the barley twist table and the historic machines. Just watched the episode with John Reed Fox again and indeed he has a very special plane made for him that features a spring to push down the toothpicks he planes with it. This plane also has a special guidance thingy and sled very impressive tool. Besides John Reed Fox his plane I've seen other and more simple planes having springs embeded in the sole. Planes without all the guide things and the sled.



> This is such a specialized plane that it wouldn't be what most people mention in a general conversation about Japanese planes.


Iv'e neven said all japanese plane have springs. I've only said some do have one in front and or behind the blade. For such a plane the various concavities in the planes sole wouk'd not help flattening such a plane.



> It would be mentioned by people who make a lot of shoji.


Based on that shoji are roomdiveders / screens a plane such as John Reed Fox uses (or one that's much simpler) is used for a lot more things. John Reed Fox site lists a lot more tpyes of furnature. One of my best friends is a scholar in the field of historic art and science and who just returned from Turkey setting up a new museum. The tings shown by John Reed Fox are not specific to Japanese shoji. Most arabic cultures have very similar techniques and decorations like John Reed Fox uses.



> Or, to reiterate, bamboo springs wouldn't be of concern for tuning/reconditioning planes.


The bamboo will be thinned reducing the spring force. Also a spring in from of the blade would most probably make the gap between the blade and the spring wider. Having the same effect when widening the mouth of plane.



Wiley Horne":2v0xzws7 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Those convex/concave diagrams are just great. An excellent contribution! Further to Adrian's questions about why plane No. 2 won't take fine shavings.......In my experience, the concave plane 2 is frequently found in the wild when you acquire an unknown plane, especially a metal plane like a Stanley. It leads to erratic cutting and heavy tearout. Here's what happens, if the user is unsuspecting: he/she will tend to increase the blade depth until there is contact with the wood--at this point the blade is cantilevered beyond the sole more than it would be if there were positive support ahead of the blade. At some point in taking the shaving, the blade will catch in the wood and deflect backward and downward more deeply into the wood, then spring back bringing with it a large patch of tearout (the tearout runs ahead since the shaving is not held down). Then the blade will lose contact until another high place is encountered, at which time you get a repeat of the blade digging in deeply, springing back, and causing tearout.


Well said. As for why a scraper won't produce the tearout while having no mouth at all. A scaper's hook is pulled across the surface. A plane blade is pushed through the top layer of the surface.



> In regard to dais... As delivered, this relief will leave about a 1/4" wide flat in front of the mouth: Some users will scrape this flat down to a very narrow line of contact, 1mm or less, in order to get more psi of pressure on the shaving, just ahead of the blade.


From what I've understood the planes with a spring (either brass or bamboo) in front of the blade is meant to do that exact same thing.


----------



## Paul Kierstead (20 Dec 2007)

tnimble":1h9nluq0 said:


> Well said. As for why a scraper won't produce the tearout while having no mouth at all. A scaper's hook is pulled across the surface. A plane blade is pushed through the top layer of the surface.



If I may suggest, you should read up on type 1 vrs type 2 shavings and some of the work that has been done regarding different methods of shaving off wood.


----------



## adrian (20 Dec 2007)

tnimble":z7mb0uga said:


> Well said. As for why a scraper won't produce the tearout while having no mouth at all. A scaper's hook is pulled across the surface. A plane blade is pushed through the top layer of the surface.



My remark wasn't about why a scraper doesn't produce tear out but rather why it cuts at all if the presence of a mouth is required to enable the plane to cut a fine shaving. This would actually suggest that I could have the plane taking a fine shaving and then if I opened the mouth up it would quit cutting. Does this occur? 

My plane with a hollow doesn't produce tear out. I've planed figured wood with it with no tear out. It doesn't cut and then not cut and then cut again if I try to take a shaving. At least, not so I've noticed. It just ceasing cutting entirely if I get much below 0.002". (I had previously figured it was a problem with making such a fine adjustment.) I believe that my plane looks like plane #1 on the list, with a broad hollow about 0.0015" deep. 

But it still seems like plane #2 should be able to take a small shaving if the blade is extended far enough and the flat regions are kept flat to the work. I'm not talking here about tear out or finish quality but simply whether a shaving is produced or not.


----------



## ivan (21 Dec 2007)

If the plane's sole is convave by 2 thou it can't cut a 2 thou shaving - the blade will miss the stuff. It will only cut at the beginning and end of the timber, making it, the wood, convex. I bought a Record no. 6 40+ yrs ago that turned out to be 25 thou concave. I didn't know about such things then and it caused me much grief! (naive enough to assume a brand new plane would be flat)

A bevel down plane blade with very close set ("sharpened") cap iron virtually duplicates the cutting geometry of a scraper. The added advantage of a very fine set mouth means that the plane can probably cut well at somewhat kinder angles and thus produce a better surface direct from the blade.

Here'sa good place to start reading.


----------



## adrian (21 Dec 2007)

If the plane has a local concavity around the mouth but the rest of the sole is flat (that's plane #2 in the pictures) then it seems to me that you could just extend the blade beyond the depth of the concavity and it should still cut. So if it is 2 thou concave then if you extend the blade 3 thou it should cut a 1 thou shaving. 

It seems like the same thing ought to be true of plane #1 as long as you cut only in the middle of the wood. The problem is that when the sole is entirely concave along it's length, when you start the cut and when you finish it then your cut will deepen to the total length of the blade projection. Is that right? This would mean that plane #1 would have a strong tendency towards making things convex because it would take thicker shavings at the ends, which would explain why my slightly concave surface turned convex when I took one set of shavings. 




ivan":pw7vl3ki said:


> A bevel down plane blade with very close set ("sharpened") cap iron virtually duplicates the cutting geometry of a scraper. The added advantage of a very fine set mouth means that the plane can probably cut well at somewhat kinder angles and thus produce a better surface direct from the blade.



I don't think "virtually" counts for anything in this case. A scraper produces a type II shaving by causing the chip to break right at the cutting point. Things that are farther back, even just a tiny bit, can't change this. The cap iron is too far back from the edge (even if it's only 1/64") to change the type of shaving.


----------



## pam niedermayer (21 Dec 2007)

adrian":1pba21y1 said:


> If the plane has a local concavity around the mouth but the rest of the sole is flat (that's plane #2 in the pictures) then it seems to me that you could just extend the blade beyond the depth of the concavity and it should still cut. So if it is 2 thou concave then if you extend the blade 3 thou it should cut a 1 thou shaving....



That assumes that the blade is capable of doing more than gouging at such an extension.

Pam


----------



## ivan (24 Dec 2007)

Adrian, if you follow the links you will see (along with associated photographs) that the cap iron is set somewhat closer than 1/64", namely about 4 thou. I suspect this is actually smaller than the burr raised on many scrapers. Further, it appears from the reported research that a cap iron set to 12 thou (less than 1/64") is having no effect on tearout in difficult grain.


----------



## adrian (26 Dec 2007)

ivan":idd3uszm said:


> Adrian, if you follow the links you will see (along with associated photographs) that the cap iron is set somewhat closer than 1/64", namely about 4 thou. I suspect this is actually smaller than the burr raised on many scrapers. Further, it appears from the reported research that a cap iron set to 12 thou (less than 1/64") is having no effect on tearout in difficult grain.



Which links was I supposed to follow? I don't see any. 

I was arguing that the cap iron should not affect performance on difficult grain, and that it does not turn the plane into a scraper. It appears that you are agreeing with my when you say that a cap iron set to 12 thou has no effect on tearout. When it comes down to it, I don't know the size of the interface at which the type II shaving breaks, so I don't know how close the chip breaker would have to be to affect this process. (I don't think the size of the scraper burr has anything to do with it.) From a theoretical standpoint, if you put the chip breaker right at the edge then it would change the cutting process, but it doesn't seem like this could happen in a real plane. 

If I camber my blade the recommended 0.25 mm that is 10 thou, so my cap iron position is already forced to be at least 10 thou back from the crown of the blade, and presumably a few thou more, at least, since it won't come right up to the blade at the edges. 


I remeasured my plane sole and got results not exactly consistent with the previous ones. If I shine a light behind my straight edge then I see light almost everywhere. But I tried inserting my feeler gauge and this time, found that most places the 0.001" gauge would not fit under the straight edge. There was one spot where it would fit in front of the mouth, and the .0015" gauge fit in behind the mouth, but over most of the rest of the plane it wouldn't fit. (This is in contrast to my previous measurement which found the .0015" gauge fitting at various spots on both sides of the mouth.) I'm not sure what would make the difference. A different part of my straight edge (which is only certified to .001")? Different clamping forces the way the plane tool was held in the vise?


----------



## Jeff Gorman (27 Dec 2007)

Just a thought when thinking about planes at very fine settings; perhaps it is best not to assume that the sole is rigid - cast iron planes, eg Record 05s can deflect a few thou in use.

Some erratic performance can also be due to slight variation in pressure, hence deflection during the progress of the stroke.

Working with an extremely fine set, I've noticed that even an 04 smoother with a dead flat sole will cut when pressure is transferred from the front knob and the hand moves over the blade/frog assenbly.


----------



## ivan (28 Dec 2007)

Adrian, scroll up the page to my first post and look for the last sentence:



> Here's a good place to start reading.



Click on the word "Here's" which is the link. Lots of relevant info there.


----------



## Joe (4 Jan 2008)

If I could just backtrack a little... 

I read David Charlesworth's article in F&C as suggested and I really like the look of the Odate crowning plates. I hope someone starts importing these soon.

One thing that occurred to me - wouldn't the most cost effective thing be to buy the convex plate and then make "two-sided" waterstones (i.e. one flat side and one concave side)? Then you'd only need one set of stones (plus the dressing plate). The only slight flaw is that my polishing stone is glued to a wooden base, but I don't suppose they're all like that.

Anyhow, I have finally succeeded in putting a slight camber on my favourite plane iron. It's amazing how a barely perceptible curve on a piece of metal can make me so happy.


----------



## David C (5 Jan 2008)

Joe,

Glad you enjoyed the article.

Import from Joel at 'Tools for Woodworking' is not at all difficult if you want a plate. His service is excellent. They are rather specialised and I doubt that they will be retailed here. Of course having said that someone is bound to start immediately...........

May I suggest that my plane blade sharpening dvd shows a simple method of cambering a blade with ordinary stones. What's more the amount of camber is easily varied to suit the type of work being done.

best wishes,
David


----------



## Joe (5 Jan 2008)

Thanks David. The cambering method you demonstrate in your DVD does indeed work very well for me now that I'm working with flat stones and a much smaller secondary bevel. I can't honestly see myself buying a crowning plate any time soon, but the idea of such precision does really appeal to the perfectionist in me...


----------



## David C (6 Jan 2008)

Joe,

Spot on. Keeping the secondary, coarse stone bevel narrow seems to solve almost all blade shaping problems, whether squareness or camber, plus ensuring rapid resharpening.

Experience with my students shows that shaping or squareness problems seem always to be associated with a wide coarse stone bevel, as this makes change of profile too slow.

I have to confess, that when I want nice wide finishing shavings for wide surfaces, I am using the red plate to create a known subtle camber.

Probably would not have bought the plate, but having been asked to test it I have become rather fond of using it for this particular job. As stated in the article it took a while to overcome my initial prejudice.

best wishes,
David


----------



## Paul Kierstead (7 Jan 2008)

Damn, I wish that mag was available here. I would love to read that article.


----------



## bugbear (8 Jan 2008)

Paul Kierstead":i9nxe1us said:


> Damn, I wish that mag was available here. I would love to read that article.



All things are available at a price. Sadly, the price may be high.

BugBear


----------



## pam niedermayer (8 Jan 2008)

bugbear":2yk4wo9d said:


> All things are available at a price. Sadly, the price may be high.



Yes, but magazines these days don't need to charge for physical mailing, which must be a major part of the cost of crossing an ocean. It's pretty trivial to make a pdf (please, mag people, single column only) once you've got the marked up files for printing.

Pam


----------



## Paul Kierstead (8 Jan 2008)

bugbear":12bb0nm0 said:


> Paul Kierstead":12bb0nm0 said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, I wish that mag was available here. I would love to read that article.
> ...



In one of those brilliant bits of web usage, if I check the rates I get:

_ 1 Year (13 issues) @ �75.00_

Now that "?" seems pretty damn important; CAD? Ugh. Euro? Very Ugh. Pounds? Keel over. Thank, guys.

However, in a fit, I fired up IE (totally and utterly against my principles, but desperation called), and it is, indeed, 75 pounds sterling.

This will come to about CAD$146.71, or about CAD$11.28 per issue which is actually almost sane for a mag here.Almost. A special edition of something like an Annual from FWW comes to usually about $9.99+taxes, so it is roughly inline. Mind you, that same issue is a few dollars cheaper south of the border, and our dollars are now at par, so the $9.99 is a bit of a sore point, but all y'all over the pond know that pain well.....

Maybe I will do it. I'm with Pam here though; how about a downloadable edition, boys?

*Edit: Of course, I did all that for the wrong magazine ....*


----------



## Paul Kierstead (8 Jan 2008)

Lets try that again. For the actually correct magazine (I had Good Woodworking stuck in my head), 12 issues is a paltry 50 quid. Well now, that is pretty much downright reasonable for an overseas subscription.


----------



## pam niedermayer (9 Jan 2008)

Paul Kierstead":2nj14udk said:


> ...
> However, in a fit, I fired up IE (totally and utterly against my principles, but desperation called), and it is, indeed, 75 pounds sterling....



I don't know what IE has to do with currency conversion; but here's a non-denominational source: http://www.xe.com/ucc/

Pam


----------



## Paul Kierstead (9 Jan 2008)

pam niedermayer":2mqtemz0 said:


> I don't know what IE has to do with currency conversion; but here's a non-denominational source: http://www.xe.com/ucc/



Not conversion, display. In IE, it displays as the pound symbol. In Firefox (in my set-up), it displays as a question mark. This is because the original was coded as a character that is not actually standards compliant for a browser...


----------



## pam niedermayer (9 Jan 2008)

I see, thanks. I still don't know what magazine you want, though.

Pam


----------



## Paul Kierstead (9 Jan 2008)

LOL!! A good example of poor communication. The magazine in question is Furniture and Cabinetmaking. Probably still too many router articles, but that seems largely unavoidable. From who has written for it, Good Woodworking also looks like a good choice, though I am not sure. Not a bad site though.


----------



## pam niedermayer (9 Jan 2008)

Yeah, I've been lusting after F&C for quite a while, would also like to see if GW continues with Jeff Gorman type quality; but then I remember that I almost never am able to read more than one mag to which I've subscribed. So for the last 3 years that's been Pop WW, and even that I haven't read all the way through since summer. It's taken me about thirty years to acknowledge and act on this, now save a pile of money. 

Pam


----------

