The blade is the very last thing you'd attempt to save steel on. That would be insane, the whole thing is steel and the proportion saved would be tiny.bridger":3cggnq7z said:I suspect that the economy of thin irons had at least as much to do with the economy of effort of sharpening a thin iron as it had to do with the economy of reduced metal used in manufacturing.
swagman":17s2p9wi said:http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/planes/72443/bailey_72443.htm
When thick plane-irons are used, their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap sufficiently to pre- vent 'buckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thin steel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where .it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I effectually prevent "buckling" and "chattering," whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.
Jacob said:"Economy of cutting-iron material" is obviously insane .....
....Nobody would buy a Bailey plane because the blades were cheaper. - No but they might buy the Bailey plane because the plane was cheaper (and every cost saving counts) than an alternative - patents are for the benefit of the manufacturer, not necessarily the purchaser.
What were these expensive alternatives? Norris hadn't started back then. As far as I know the alternative was a woody. These were cheaper then and always were, even when ar worra lad - the Stanley plane was kept in a cupboard and we were only allowed to use it on special occasions (at school this is).phil.p":2humk9cx said:Jacob":2humk9cx said:"Economy of cutting-iron material" is obviously insane .....
....Nobody would buy a Bailey plane because the blades were cheaper. - No but they might buy the Bailey plane because the plane was cheaper (and every cost saving counts) than an alternative - patents are for the benefit of the manufacturer, not necessarily the purchaser.
Cheshirechappie":fh48bpap said:swagman":fh48bpap said:http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/planes/72443/bailey_72443.htm
When thick plane-irons are used, their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap sufficiently to pre- vent 'buckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thin steel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where .it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I effectually prevent "buckling" and "chattering," whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.
Thank you, Stewie.
To expand a little on Stewie's post , a little googling brought forth the following - US Patent 72,443 Improvements in Carpenters Planes, awarded to Leonard Bailey on 24th December 1867.
https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7244 ... cUCh01MgcM
As can be seen by reading it, Bailey specifically states that his invention is the careful shaping of the cap-iron (as discussed earlier in the thread) for the purpose of stiffening a thin iron to eliminate it's propensity to chatter. Sharpening is not mentioned. If thin irons are easier to sharpen, it's an incidental advantage, and not the patent intent, which is clearly stated as economy of cutting-iron material achieved by revised cap-iron design.
It's worth mentioning that patents are always very carefully worded, because they often have to be defended against infringement in a court of law. Precision and clarity of language are therefore vital; they don't contain throw-away comments.
Cheshirechappie":z7801xtr said:swagman":z7801xtr said:http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/planes/72443/bailey_72443.htm
When thick plane-irons are used, their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap sufficiently to pre- vent 'buckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thin steel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where .it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I effectually prevent "buckling" and "chattering," whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.
Thank you, Stewie.
To expand a little on Stewie's post , a little googling brought forth the following - US Patent 72,443 Improvements in Carpenters Planes, awarded to Leonard Bailey on 24th December 1867.
https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7244 ... cUCh01MgcM
As can be seen by reading it, Bailey specifically states that his invention is the careful shaping of the cap-iron (as discussed earlier in the thread) for the purpose of stiffening a thin iron to eliminate it's propensity to chatter. Sharpening is not mentioned. If thin irons are easier to sharpen, it's an incidental advantage, and not the patent intent, which is clearly stated as economy of cutting-iron material achieved by revised cap-iron design.
It's worth mentioning that patents are always very carefully worded, because they often have to be defended against infringement in a court of law. Precision and clarity of language are therefore vital; they don't contain throw-away comments.
Yes - but why and what for? Could have just made them thicker.Cheshirechappie":25sneq2m said:..... The guy was looking for a way to make thin cutting irons less chatter prone - and found it.
If not about sharpening (and quick sharpening turn-around and adjustment) then completely pointless.Nothing to do with sharpening.
Jacob":x75572cj said:Yes - but why and what for?Cheshirechappie":x75572cj said:..... The guy was looking for a way to make thin cutting irons less chatter prone - and found it.If not about sharpening (and quick sharpening turn-around and adjustment) then completely pointless.Nothing to do with sharpening.
Cheshirechappie":3s9f1o57 said:Amazing how this has turned into a sharpening debate! The guy was looking for a way to make thin cutting irons less chatter prone - and found it. Nothing to do with sharpening.
Er so what?Cheshirechappie":2kh07kz0 said:Bailey held (or had a close interest in) 30 patents, according to this link - http://www.datamp.org/patents/search/xr ... 0&id=11766
I've had a quick perusal through the most likely ones, and can find no mention of ease of sharpening plane irons. It may be that a more thorough investigation may produce such a reference. However, there is no doubt whatever that the particular patent under discussion (US72443) does not - link further up page.
Enter your email address to join: