A planing question.

[D_W]

Something has not gotten across. I have tried all of them myself. Here is another video where I did the same thing, but using wooden planes.

It's possible that it could be easier to attain flatness with one or the other (infill, wooden, metal stanley or copy of stanley's pattern), but I've never noticed a difference.

https://youtu.be/b4_5gpdyH6E

(this video is unlisted on youtube because it's not really worthy of being public)

It was 2 years ago that I recorded this, one was just to see if I could get an exchange going where people showed themselves doing something that was actual work, and the other was because I thought it was important to be able to see approximately straight and square (which I bloviate about in the middle of it). These are rough edged boards being jointed, and the planes are two wooden planes that I've made. They are just about dead copies of a mathieson closed-handle jack and a griffiths of norwich long/try plane (24 inches), so there is nothing special about them in terms of rigidity.

I guess some of that stuff isn't as important as I thought, but I do think it's useful if you're working by hand to:
* feel a hump, at least reasonably close, so that you can remove it without having to put something on it to see how big it is
* be able to feel and see relatively square
* be able to get flat or close to it as part of that without taking extra steps

I used a straight edge in this video as a final check because these pieces were laminated to make bench legs (not matched to anything), and I didn't want to have to do any significant work to three of the sides, and I probably table sawed the fourth on a cheap jobsite table saw (can't remember for sure) because I'd had enough of ripping ash by hand with the top laminations (I remember that well). It's not that nice to rip by hand if it's got a bunch of runout in it, and even if it doesn't - it doesn't rip like cherry.

It's the same thing every time with every plane. I think in terms of "trying for yourself", what I'm saying is that I have.

 

[Corneel]

And it also works with flat stuff. As soon as all the ripples, cup, twist etc are gone, and I am able to take through shavings, the board will be flat lenghtwise. Most of the time. And when the plane is long enough of course.

This used to be a problem for me, especially making it convex towards the ends. But it seems I did learn something through the years.

 

[Ttrees]

This post popped into my head again while I was planing this length for the bench.
I said I was going to redo the experiment again, as I felt there were too many variables last time.
Just planing off some remaining saw marks, this piece was still square and flat though beforehand.

This agreeable length is 82 1/2" quite close to my maximum planing length of 7 feet (with this stop batten)
I guessed my bench was much longer
I have a bit of camber, maybe a bit much for the (25 maybe?) shavings I was taking on the no.5 1/2.
The cap iron had not be needed to be set tight, but I always have it closeish for jack planing I suppose.
Mouth always set back level with castings since learning how to use the cap iron.
I felt I noticed this more on the no.8 but could not be certain, I might try with it soon.

The timber is starting to pivot on the bench two-thirds of the way through the length, not bang on in the middle.
Absolutely no stop shavings, nor any weight changing applied during planing.

Now I suppose I could prove that this bench is flat, by butting two full bench length timbers together to show no light
when matched, as I did when properly shimming the bench top not so long ago, but I don't think these
lengths will deflect much anyway.

Tom

 

[D_W]

So, what's the conclusion - the ends are planed unintentionally during the process?

I can't remember an accounting of this, if anyone else is doing what I do (which is more efficient and definitely faster and easier, because it's just intuitive - but intuition doesn't matter if you still plane the ends off of the boards, anyway).

I don't know if the cap iron is vital and in what % of cases, but I always have it set so that it is working on edges because it ensures with certainty that the shaving thickness will be the same from end to end - assuming that you keep the plane in the cut the whole way. That is probably a big key to why I don't plane ends off of boards. If shaving thickness is ensured from start to finish, it becomes difficult to plane the ends off in the first place.

I realize the reality is also, though, that very few are working with hand tools only, and what I see as a time savings is just one of many things, and many others may not care because it's such a small part of the process.

 

[bridger]

You're missing a critical force. The iron is pulling the center of the plane downward into the workpiece. The amount of force is small but proportional to the forces needed to handle the plane * in normal use*. As the iron dulls the down force of the iron decreases. An obvious beginner response is to push down harder rather than sharpen. Couple that with inexperienced technique and a crowned board is the inevitable result.

The experiment could be done t'other way about, as it were. Place a shim under the plane sole somewhere near the mouth, and see how much shim you can insert at toe and heel. Then grasp handle and knob, apply normal working downforce, and ask your glamorous assistant to check toe and heel with shims again. You will have spotted that by doing things this way round, you need at least three hands, which is what makes the original method outlined by Custard somewhat easier - only need two hands at most. The end conclusion will be the same - Bailey planes do flex a bit longways.

The effect in 'working mode' (hands on handle and knob) will be to cause the toe end and heel end to deflect downwards a bit, with the wood holding up the middle. Thus, the plane will act like one with a slightly concave sole. The degree of 'induced concavity' will obviously depend on the amount of downforce applied at the handle and knob, and won't be great using normal amounts of planing force. However, given enough shavings, it will result in a slightly crowned board or edge, as has been noted in Andy Kev's original post, and in David C's posts. Clearly there will some more complexity than that, given that planing downforce shifts as the plane moves from start of cut to end run-off, but with about even force down on heel and toe at mid stroke, the effect noted will happen.

The stop-shaving technique (or 'digging a hole in the middle') will correct for the plane's deflection by leaving up-standing wood at the ends, forcing the plane's toe and heel upwards and correcting for the sole distortion from downforce.

Thus, technique overcomes the natural imperfection inherent in the design of the tool.

 

[Ttrees]

Hello David
I would say that these were single consistent shavings engaged at all times throughout the length of the cuts
At no time did the plane stop cutting, whilst not dead square I took full length passes even though I knew I
only needed to do a spot, and this felt very silly.
Back planing dead center again to finish.

I wonder if you would get the same results with a longer stick
Must watch your video again
Tom

 

[D_W]

I get the same results with a longer stick. It's actually a little easier to bias pressure and cut the center out of a stick a little without stop shavings. The shorter sticks just turn out flat.

I haven't taken a stop shaving in years.

In terms of just planing a spot, though, if I start with a board that is high in the center, or on an end, or whatever, I plane the high spot off first and then finish with through shavings. If the board does not have a high spot, I don't do that.

I don't think the video will help - what's hard to see is that I bias the pressure to the front of the plane in the video at the start and then to the back at the end. It keeps the plane from cutting the ends off and becomes habit (as in, you don't have to do anything or think anything to do it) very quickly.

The efficiency then translates to working faces, because you can thickness an entire face and the only thing that actually happens is that occasionally you end up with a face that's slightly hollow in the middle. The reason that's so efficient, I guess, is because you can just plane to a mark rather than planing short of it and then taking stop shavings, etc.

I don't know what I did before cap iron (that was more than 5 years ago now), but I'm sure it wasn't as fast or easy. The cap iron being engaged makes it very clear why it eliminated single iron planes for the most part - economy in time for a whole gaggle of reasons. keeping the shaving together (no or little tearout) is very economical in terms of planing without having correct what you're doing.

 

[Ttrees]

Reading what you said David, I recall the video only now.
I haven't tried planing with one hand in most of the cut, until after the test again last night.
I wasn't trying your technique though, If I can indeed replicate it.

Honestly....
I wanted to try that cool draping the shavings trick, that Cosman does frequently


I have to say now thinking about it, its a similar style.
I always try to bear down a bit more I suppose, and I'm not gonna change that because
my legs get a bit of help this way.

I think I will experiment for fun anyway, but choose not use the technique.
Tom

 

[Jacob]

...
I wanted to try that cool draping the shavings trick, that Cosman does frequently .......

You need some perfect pieces of lime or similar if you want to do pointless Cosman circus tricks!

 

[D_W]

Reading what you said David, I recall the video only now.
I haven't tried planing with one hand in most of the cut, until after the test again last night.
I wasn't trying your technique though, If I can indeed replicate it.

Honestly....
I wanted to try that cool draping the shavings trick, that Cosman does frequently


I have to say now thinking about it, its a similar style.
I always try to bear down a bit more I suppose, and I'm not gonna change that because
my legs get a bit of help this way.

I think I will experiment for fun anyway, but choose not use the technique.
Tom

In the end, if what I do doesn't work for you, no big deal. I have no idea what I do that's different than what anyone else does, because I'm very lazy in a sense, but in a way to try to drive improvement rather than repeating steps.

A quote from Frank Gilbreath, Sr (well, not a quote, but a commentary, maybe). I used to think this was attributed to Bill Gates or Chrysler, but it's not.

Gilbreth studied the methods of various bricklayers—the poor workmen and the best ones, and he stumbled upon an astonishing fact of great importance and significance. He found that he could learn most from the lazy man!

Most of the chance improvements in human motions that eliminate unnecessary movement and reduce fatigue have been hit upon, Gilbreth thinks, by men who were lazy—so lazy that every needless step counted.”

Another important thing Gilbreth noted was that the so-called expert factory workers are often the most wasteful of their motions and strength. Because of their energy and ability to work at high speed, such men may be able to produce a large quantity of good work, and thus qualify as experts, but they tire themselves out of all proportion to the amount of work done.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

That's always been known - if you want to find the easiest way of doing something, ask a lazy man.

 

[memzey]

Go ahead and ask. I’m listening