About thick cap-irons

[MIGNAL]

You do get tracks with the Stanley SW. It took me 2 minutes with some wet/dry to eliminate them.
As for the slop in Clifton chipbreaker: none in mine (3 examples). Either a bad batch and/or worn tooling. It happens. Anyone who ever makes anything in sufficient numbers is going to eventually come across the odd poor example that gets through quality control. It happens to multi million £ companies like Ford and Toyota it's almost certainly going to happen to smaller companies. Send the faulty ones back! Makes perfect sense.

 

[Trafalgar]

Just to shake thing up a bit. Here's another one who isn't happy with the stayset capiron:

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/w...d:+woodworkingmagazine+(Woodworking+Magazine)

Ahem, ahem.... Charlesworth, Cohen, and now Schwarz......

Anybody remember these guys:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... zy2A0HcklA

I just looked at my Clifton two-piece capiron. It actually doesn't exhibit a perfect fit (pretty far from it, really) where nose mates to body. And you know what? It doesn't seem to matter a bloody damned bit.

Here it is yet again (perfect bacon strip off hard, figured maple), in a plane whose frog is highly unlikely to be a perfect mating fit to its bed (I've never bothered to check), whose sole most certainly is not perfectly flat (I did check and just chuckled and happily use it anyway), and whose cutter had already been in use for fifteen or twenty minutes and certainly had nothing anywhere close to a 'perfect' edge (even to start with). The woodshop must be a miserable place to be for the frustrated machinist crowd. They are forever fiddling, fixing, futzing, tuning, and complaining about tools that seem to work fine in other people's hands. And this is done all the while they own a full kit (kit and a half) from other manufacturers built to practically aerospace specs. Makes no sense whatsoever.

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy32 ... 9b94f5.jpg

 

[Corneel]

Well, if you want to set the capiron 4 thou from the edge and it has 4 thou slop, I can understand that it is irritating. But 4 thou from the edge is really really really close. When you put a 70 degree microbevel on the frontedge of your capiron, you won't ever have to set it that close.

 

[Trafalgar]

Well, if you want to set the capiron 4 thou from the edge and it has 4 thou slop, I can understand that it is irritating. But 4 thou from the edge is really really really close. When you put a 70 degree microbevel on the frontedge of your capiron, you won't ever have to set it that close.

I really am going to 'take the pledge' not to even attempt to quantify or mention measurements for which I have no instrument capable of taking said measurement. As long as I have my eyesight it'll just have to do. It's worked well for woodworkers through the centuries, no?

My folding rule measures in sixteenths of an inch as its smallest increment. Everything smaller than that related to wood is "cut to fit." Anything related to setting up a hand tool will have to be 'by eye.'

This thousandths of an inch horse-puckey is really beyond the pale at this point, in my opinion. Aren't you tired of it? Do you own a lot of instruments (or even one) that can take these sorts of measurements? Has owning such sensitive equipment opened up new vistas in your woodworking? If so, how, exactly has it done so? I have no clue what 4 thousandths of an inch looks like. I assume it would look differently in every part of a room depending on the light. Heck, I'm sure it would look differently in different kinds of light or under different kinds of light bulbs. You know, you just set it close and then adjust it if need be. If it works, as it did in my example, just use the tool. Next time, make it work again. And the time after that. Before you know it, the tool simply 'works' when you use it.

 

[Jacob]

Just to shake thing up a bit. Here's another one who isn't happy with the stayset capiron:

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/w...d:+woodworkingmagazine+(Woodworking+Magazine)

Ahem, ahem.... Charlesworth, Cohen, and now Schwarz......

Anybody remember these guys:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... zy2A0HcklA

I just looked at my Clifton two-piece capiron. It actually doesn't exhibit a perfect fit (pretty far from it, really) where nose mates to body. And you know what? It doesn't seem to matter a bloody damned bit.

Here it is yet again (perfect bacon strip off hard, figured maple), in a plane whose frog is highly unlikely to be a perfect mating fit to its bed (I've never bothered to check), whose sole most certainly is not perfectly flat (I did check and just chuckled and happily use it anyway), and whose cutter had already been in use for fifteen or twenty minutes and certainly had nothing anywhere close to a 'perfect' edge (even to start with). The woodshop must be a miserable place to be for the frustrated machinist crowd. They are forever fiddling, fixing, futzing, tuning, and complaining about tools that seem to work fine in other people's hands. And this is done all the while they own a full kit (kit and a half) from other manufacturers built to practically aerospace specs. Makes no sense whatsoever.

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy32 ... 9b94f5.jpg

:lol: Agree. I take your point but who are those chaps? Is Dave the one in the middle?

 

[Trafalgar]

Just to shake thing up a bit. Here's another one who isn't happy with the stayset capiron:

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/w...d:+woodworkingmagazine+(Woodworking+Magazine)

Ahem, ahem.... Charlesworth, Cohen, and now Schwarz......

Anybody remember these guys:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... zy2A0HcklA

I just looked at my Clifton two-piece capiron. It actually doesn't exhibit a perfect fit (pretty far from it, really) where nose mates to body. And you know what? It doesn't seem to matter a bloody damned bit.

Here it is yet again (perfect bacon strip off hard, figured maple), in a plane whose frog is highly unlikely to be a perfect mating fit to its bed (I've never bothered to check), whose sole most certainly is not perfectly flat (I did check and just chuckled and happily use it anyway), and whose cutter had already been in use for fifteen or twenty minutes and certainly had nothing anywhere close to a 'perfect' edge (even to start with). The woodshop must be a miserable place to be for the frustrated machinist crowd. They are forever fiddling, fixing, futzing, tuning, and complaining about tools that seem to work fine in other people's hands. And this is done all the while they own a full kit (kit and a half) from other manufacturers built to practically aerospace specs. Makes no sense whatsoever.

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy32 ... 9b94f5.jpg

:lol: Agree. I take your point but who are those chaps? Abbott & Costello plus friend?

They're "The Three Stooges"

 

[Corneel]

I really am going to 'take the pledge' not to even attempt to quantify or mention measurements for which I have no instrument capable of taking said measurement. As long as I have my eyesight it'll just have to do. It's worked well for woodworkers through the centuries, no?

Indeed. When I give some beginner advice about this I'd say "when you get tearout, set it as close as you can. If you still get tearout, set it closer".

So to be very clear: DON'T attempt to measure the distance.

Really the only way I know to measure this precisely is with a digital microscope and calibrated software. But that is rediculous in the workshop. And not neccessary.

 

[David C]

Enough of this persiflage.

Poor old Charles is blundering about in the dim world of imperial measurement. He experiences fine measurements every day but has no language to describe them.

A fine finishing shaving is about one thou".
A comfortable hardwood shaving is about two thou". So is newspaper.
A reasonably heavy hardwood shaving is about 4 thou". So is the thickness of reasonable quality printer paper.

Perhaps it is this lack of language that makes him so cantankerous?

 

[Trafalgar]

Enough of this persiflage.

Poor old Charles is blundering about in the dim world of imperial measurement. He experiences fine measurements every day but has no language to describe them.

A fine finishing shaving is about one thou".
A comfortable hardwood shaving is about two thou". So is newspaper.
A reasonably heavy hardwood shaving is about 4 thou". So is the thickness of reasonable quality printer paper.

Perhaps it is this lack of language that makes him so cantankerous?

The 'dim world of imperial measurement...?' So, please tell us what your equivalencies listed above are X-thousandths of.... an inch would be my guess. The last time I checked the inch wasn't part of any system of measurement not correctly described as 'imperial.'

I think I'll take a page out of the newspaper, and one out of my inkjet printer, and put them in the workshop for purposes of comparison. I'm not sure how this affects anything relevant, but I *guess* it must be entertaining and somehow enlightening to one's woodworking. "Look, Ma, this shaving is as thin as the newspaper." "Why don't you go thinner, Sonny?" "But Ma, I'll never get finished like that," says Sonny.

Oh, I know -- this is like trial attorneys who include their testosterone level on their resume. Impressive.

Go get 'em tiger.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Oh Charles, we have to describe measurements in some form of language for the sake of comunicating what we do. No one measures these things, (except maybe in those competitions such as Japanese craftsmen enjoy).

For instance, that shaving you are overly fond of showing us, in fairly innocuous maple BTW is about 1 1/2 thou. Are you going to hog off a lot of material like that, no, that is for final finishing. Could you go finer than that? Yes, but that would probably require you to flatten the plane's sole, so if you don't need to, then don't bother flattening. If you do then do. Other craftsmen find the need, either out of personal pride or necessity, but it is daft saying it doesn't have to be done, if you are working to different parameters then that will dictate how fine, or not, the tool needs to perform. It is not possible to take a consistent shaving much thinner than the deviation from flatness of the planes sole. For the sake of a bit of lapping on wet and dry, I think the time would be better spent doing so, rather than arguing the point in not doing so.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Who wants all these shavings anyway? I always bin mine without even measuring them. I'm more bothered about the finished surface of the workpiece. Am I missing something?

 

[MIGNAL]

Hello,

Oh Charles, we have to describe measurements in some form of language for the sake of comunicating what we do. No one measures these things, (except maybe in those competitions such as Japanese craftsmen enjoy).

For instance, that shaving you are overly fond of showing us, in fairly innocuous maple BTW is about 1 1/2 thou. Are you going to hog off a lot of material like that, no, that is for final finishing. Could you go finer than that? Yes, but that would probably require you to flatten the plane's sole, so if you don't need to, then don't bother flattening. If you do then do. Other craftsmen find the need, either out of personal pride or necessity, but it is daft saying it doesn't have to be done, if you are working to different parameters then that will dictate how fine, or not, the tool needs to perform. It is not possible to take a consistent shaving much thinner than the deviation from flatness of the planes sole. For the sake of a bit of lapping on wet and dry, I think the time would be better spent doing so, rather than arguing the point in not doing so.

Mike.

Fairly innocuous Maple? Looks like it has quilt and some birds eye thrown in for good measure. What's more it's pretty hard to tell just by looking at a piece of wood just how difficult it's going to be. After all, how do you know where the run out is? I've hand planed plenty of very highly figured Maple over the years. Even certain examples of very lightly flamed stuff can be more difficult than deep, broad figured examples. You really can't tell just by looking at a picture. My guess, based on experience of quilt, flame and birds eye, is that it would take an extremely sharp and well set up Plane to obtain such a shaving without tear out.
I could be wrong though.

 

[Trafalgar]

Hello,

Oh Charles, we have to describe measurements in some form of language for the sake of comunicating what we do. No one measures these things, (except maybe in those competitions such as Japanese craftsmen enjoy).

For instance, that shaving you are overly fond of showing us, in fairly innocuous maple BTW is about 1 1/2 thou. Are you going to hog off a lot of material like that, no, that is for final finishing. Could you go finer than that? Yes, but that would probably require you to flatten the plane's sole, so if you don't need to, then don't bother flattening. If you do then do. Other craftsmen find the need, either out of personal pride or necessity, but it is daft saying it doesn't have to be done, if you are working to different parameters then that will dictate how fine, or not, the tool needs to perform. It is not possible to take a consistent shaving much thinner than the deviation from flatness of the planes sole. For the sake of a bit of lapping on wet and dry, I think the time would be better spent doing so, rather than arguing the point in not doing so.

Mike.

This morning I made shavings the thickness of a gauzy, sort of really fine tissue paper (best I can describe it). Finishing passes for sure. Is there an overriding need for me to equate that to another physical substance or even know what its absolute measurement is? It's a thin, gauzy finishing pass. What's the big deal?

I suppose the question really is when did taking an ordinary thin finish shaving become so interesting? People book classes to learn how to take a thin shaving. It's ridiculous. It's like taking a class to learn how to sweep the shop floor.

I would beware of folks who have a vested interest in conflating simple tasks into something mysterious and difficult and replete with needless fine measurements, tool catalog metallurgy, and other sundry hoo-hah.

There's nothing here that Charles Hayward didn't cover in a page and half, or probably even less.

 

[Trafalgar]

Hello,

Oh Charles, we have to describe measurements in some form of language for the sake of comunicating what we do. No one measures these things, (except maybe in those competitions such as Japanese craftsmen enjoy).

For instance, that shaving you are overly fond of showing us, in fairly innocuous maple BTW is about 1 1/2 thou. Are you going to hog off a lot of material like that, no, that is for final finishing. Could you go finer than that? Yes, but that would probably require you to flatten the plane's sole, so if you don't need to, then don't bother flattening. If you do then do. Other craftsmen find the need, either out of personal pride or necessity, but it is daft saying it doesn't have to be done, if you are working to different parameters then that will dictate how fine, or not, the tool needs to perform. It is not possible to take a consistent shaving much thinner than the deviation from flatness of the planes sole. For the sake of a bit of lapping on wet and dry, I think the time would be better spent doing so, rather than arguing the point in not doing so.

Mike.

Fairly innocuous Maple? Looks like it has quilt and some birds eye thrown in for good measure. What's more it's pretty hard to tell just by looking at a piece of wood just how difficult it's going to be. After all, how do you know where the run out is? I've hand planed plenty of very highly figured Maple over the years. Even certain examples of very lightly flamed stuff can be more difficult than deep, broad figured examples.

It was, and is (I still have some), far from innocuous.

 

[bugbear]

Who wants all these shavings anyway? I always bin mine without even measuring them. I'm more bothered about the finished surface of the workpiece. Am I missing something?

The properties of the shaving are an excellent proxy for the cutting action of the blade, and much easier to see. This is a simple tip,
and I'm happy to pass it on.

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

Who wants all these shavings anyway? I always bin mine without even measuring them. I'm more bothered about the finished surface of the workpiece. Am I missing something?

The properties of the shaving are an excellent proxy for the cutting action of the blade, and much easier to see. This is a simple tip,
and I'm happy to pass it on.

BugBear

I'm happy to pass along the tip to plane a piece of project scrap in order to adjust the plane to requirements before running finishing passes on live project stock.

That said, I don't look at the shavings really. Sometimes their shape as they come up out the plane might be indicative of something. I simply look to see if the project scrap's surface (of the same species of course) will meet requirements for whatever the next stage might be - finished off the plane, or scraped and sanded to better accommodate the finish planned for the project. Really, the shavings do go in the garbage. It's the surface that counts.

 

[woodbrains]

Fairly innocuous Maple? Looks like it has quilt and some birds eye thrown in for good measure. What's more it's pretty hard to tell just by looking at a piece of wood just how difficult it's going to be. After all, how do you know where the run out is? I've hand planed plenty of very highly figured Maple over the years. Even certain examples of very lightly flamed stuff can be more difficult than deep, broad figured examples.

It was, and is (I still have some), far from innocuous.

Hello,

OK sorry if your maple was a bit ornery, after all. The point is, though if you can plane to this thickness and thinner, as I believe you are doing, (those cottony shavings are good aren't they?) you cannot do it without a sharp blade (I never doubted they weren't.) or a flat sole. You might downplay the flatness of your plane, but it is flat, none the less. Intonatiing that it is just a bog standard, all planes come like this and everyone else makes a fuss over the fact, is a bit disingenuous . I have had many planes that needed flattening, before they would work, one particular example was so far out that by the time I had it flat, it was so thin under the frog, that it bent like tinfoil under the pressure of the frog screws. You might have been lucky, or got a used one that had been fettled by its former owner, but you have a flat plane. And how do we measure deviation from flatness but in thou's of inches, when comunicating what we are doing to others here?

Mike.

 

[Trafalgar]

I must have hit the Record plane jackpot. Every single one of them I own (8, 6, 5, 4.5 and 4) will take a really willowy shaving. Check that, I should say that I can't speak for the jack, I don't recall every asking it to work as a finish plane, and its iron is too heavily curved and would take a ridiculously narrow shaving if set really fine.

I have put a straightedge on the soles of my 4.5 and my 4, this being the rule out of a Starrett combination gauge. Neither plane tests terribly flat, there's light, but I suppose it could be the straightedge and not the soles. I did do a small amount of sole-fettling on the 4. I faired in some grinding marks on the bottom with a little sandpaper, a 20 or 30 minute job and rubbed a bump here or there (according to the Starrett rule). Nothing even close to a major sole flattening if memory serves. I have had this plane quite a while. It was one of only a few tools to survive a shop fire a few years ago.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

I have a preference for Record planes myself, the older the better in terms of manufacturing quality. But it was a Record 05 1/2 that was disastrously out of flat, as outlined above.

20-30 minutes work with abrasives on a plane sole IS flattening though, let us make no bones about it. I think you are a secret plane fettler and accuracy aficionado, you just don't like to admit it! No woodworker needs the accuracy of a Starrett engineers square, after all. ( I have one and wouldn't be without it, but then I'm not afraid of talking about thou's)

Mike.

 

[bugbear]

20-30 minutes work with abrasives on a plane sole IS flattening though, let us make no bones about it.

In Paul Sellers plane tuning video, he flattens a sole in around 60 seconds. His techniques really are unbelievably good!

BugBear