Anant and the credit crunch

[bugbear]

Hi Bugbear,

As far as I know it's always the total error figure that is quoted.

By whom - all of them? That's certainly not normal engineering practice where a single tolerance figure is taken be plus-or-minus.

BugBear

 

[matthewwh]

Maybe it is easier to work with reference to British Standard which is 1.5 thou off centreline (3 thou total deviation).

Veritas and Stanley (the new range) work to British standard.

Clifton and Lie-Nielsen work to half that tolerance i.e. 0.75 thou off centreline (1.5 thou total deviation).

 

[bugbear]

Maybe it is easier to work with reference to British Standard which is 1.5 thou off centreline (3 thou total deviation).

Veritas and Stanley (the new range) work to British standard.

Not true for Veritas, at least according to classic hand tools:

http://www.classichandtools.com/acatalo ... Plane.html

"The sole is guaranteed to be flat to 0.003" concave, never convex. "

BugBear

 

[matthewwh]

It's the same thing expressed differently.

You can't actually measure against a centreline in practice, so it has to be measured as a unilateral tolerance against a flat surface as shown in the photos above. By definition this must be twice the maximum deviation from an imaginary centreline of deviation.

Repeat the procedure in the photos above with a 3 thou feeler gauge and you are measuring to British Standard. Whether you refer to this as a 3 thou unilateral tolerance or a 1.5 thou bilateral tolerance in relation to an imaginary centreline is merely two different ways of expressing the same thing.

Having said that, I can imagine that a plane with even a thou of bump would rock audibly on the surface plate - as would a straightedge with a 1 thou feeler gauge under it, and I can't imagine any engineer would pass that. Maybe we have just answered your earlier question about why planemakers tend to refer to total deviation?

 

[bugbear]

It's the same thing expressed differently.

You can't actually measure against a centreline in practice, so it has to be measured as a unilateral tolerance against a flat surface as shown in the photos above. By definition this must be twice the maximum deviation from an imaginary centreline of deviation.

I'm fairly sure that "never convex". implies that direction of error, as well as magnitude is being stated.

I think it also implies an assumption that the error is (what might loosely be termed) a "bow" as opposed to a more complex "ripple" or "bumpiness".

Working with those assumptions, I think it implies an accuracy equivalent to +-1.5 thou deviation from mean plane for Veritas, although Veritas do seem to be trying (quite hard) to express assymetric tolerances..

BugBear

 

[matthewwh]

Exactly, and as long as the total error still falls within the British standard of 3 thou total deviation the tool conforms.

I must admit I have only ever lapped one plane sole that was convex and that was a Norris - steel as opposed to cast iron - very long process - never again!!! All the non-flat cast plane bodies I have worked on have invariably been low in the centre - usually cheaper ones that probably haven't been annealed or ground properly.

It makes sense if you think that the outside of a casting cools first, then the as the inside cools and contracts it would tend to draw the middle of a surface inwards. If heat is reintroduced during grinding then the cooling process after grinding would cause the same effect - albeit limited - on the ground surface. This is why Cliffies are ground so slowly, about 14 minutes for each face with a constant flow of coolant and time for the heat from each pass to dissipate before the next one starts, so there is no chance for the heat to build up.

I believe Ductile is easier and faster to machine accurately than fully annealed grey although I'm not sure of the specifics, has anyone visited the LN or Veritas production facilities?

 

[PerranOak]

Thanks guys. (Sorry. Been away for a while!)

My prob is that I can't get on with powered planes but the hand planes I've bought (both Anant) I've been unable to use.

My problem is that though I can just about sharpen (Hone? Maybe!) a chisel, a plane is a bit beyond me just now.

I need a plane I can just ... well ... use!

Many thanks to Pete for his offer.

I'm also very interested in the Clifton planes mentioned above. I need, I guess, a smoothing plane and a jack plane at the very least. Maybe, also a block plane.

I would rather try to get it right with a plane than botch it then attempt to "sand my way out of trouble"!

 

[bugbear]

Exactly, and as long as the total error still falls within the British standard of 3 thou total deviation the tool conforms.

The fact that an item conforms to a particular spec doesn't mean that the spec fully describes the item, of course.

BugBear

 

[lurker]

Thanks guys. (Sorry. Been away for a while!)

My prob is that I can't get on with powered planes but the hand planes I've bought (both Anant) I've been unable to use.

My problem is that though I can just about sharpen (Hone? Maybe!) a chisel, a plane is a bit beyond me just now.

I need a plane I can just ... well ... use!

Many thanks to Pete for his offer.

I'm also very interested in the Clifton planes mentioned above. I need, I guess, a smoothing plane and a jack plane at the very least. Maybe, also a block plane.

I would rather try to get it right with a plane than botch it then attempt to "sand my way out of trouble"!

We have had this discussion soooooooo many times.
PO, even if you buy the best planes going ,you will HAVE to learn to tune & hone (unless you are going to put them in a glass case) them.

So..... here's your choice

- spend a heap of cash on a brilliant plane & risk F ing it up whilst learning honeing.
Or take Pete up on his most generous offer, see & use a plane as it should be and then learn to hone - should you cock up its no big loss.

 

[PerranOak]

Yes! Exactly.

The problem was, the Anant plane was unusable ... or .. am I just a dill?!

At least with Pete's plane, if I'm rubbish, I'll know it's my fault!

 

[edsof754]

I bought a plane from Pete. Excellent value. Thank you

 

[PerranOak]

Yes! Thank you very much Pete.
It has arrived and I've tried it out.
I'm now hissing along nicely.
It obviously was a duff plane that I had before.
My technique still needs honing but at least the plane doesn't (!)

 

[Racers]

Hi, Chaps

Glad they arrived safely, I still have some left if any one wants one.


Pete

 

[Bassbear81]

Pete

Did you get my pm, you were going to get back to me about postage.

Cheers

 

[Benchwayze]

I bought a new LN Bronze No4, Bedrock pattern smoother and a used LN Low-angle Jack.

Of the two I prefer the low angle jack. So far it’s left a beautiful finish on every sample I’ve planed with it.

I don’t know if I have to 'work-in' the new No. 4 blade, but I am finding it difficult to get a curve on the hone and subsequently it leaves tramlines. The shavings are not as thin as I can get with my old, fettled Stanley to be honest. It either refuses to cut, or it takes a shaving that is about the same as the average bench-jack.

Unwittingly I laid the plane on its side today, on my bench and onto some crumbs of mahogany that I had overlooked. These chippings marked the bronze with tiny scratches. Very soft I would say, but I'll perservere.

Regards
John
:?

 

[Racers]

Hi,

Number 4s all spoken for. :wink:

Pete

 

[Benchwayze]

Hi,

Number 4s all spoken for. :wink:

Pete

Well Pete, if that was meant for me, no probs! I won't let a plane beat me. I am quite sure it's my unfamiliarity wth this 'Bedrock' thing! I will sort it eventually.

Cheers
John

 

[newt]

Benchways, I have a LN bronze no4 and it is great no problems at all, very flat sole, half a thou shavings honest.

 

[newt]

Benchwayze, I should add that I have an LA bevel up jack which is more versatile which is what I would choose if I only had one plane.

 

[Benchwayze]

Hi Newt,
Yes, I agree entirely. Now I bought a used Bevel-up LN Jack, I wouldn't be without it.
I just got through fine-tuning it and the No. 4. I'll photograph some shavings tomorrow!
Thanks again

John