Bailey style planes, thin irons and cap-irons.

[bridger]

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.

 

[Jacob]

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.

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.
The whole point of the Bailey design is to make a blade easy to sharpen (thin) easy to take out and put back, easy to adjust, which would work as well as a thick one .

I think that phrase was just thrown in and the real economy of a thin blade is in the saved downtime.

You could compare the invention of the safety razor of about the same time. Slightly different - they started out with a thick blade section similar to a cutthroat but safer and easier to sharpen. But the blade holding system worked with a thinner blade which soon became the norm mainly because it was cheaper to make and to sharpen in the factory - so much so that it became disposable.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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.

 

[Jacob]

"Economy of cutting-iron material" is obviously insane as the resultant plane had much more steel in it and was a lot more expensive than the woody alternatives. As an economy measure a complete and utter failure!

Nobody would buy a Bailey plane because the blades were cheaper. They bought them for the various obvious advantages - speed/ease of sharpening being top, adjustment and precision next.

But would the blades have been much cheaper anyway? I imagine not a lot, if anything.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"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.

 

[Jacob]

"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).

 

[swagman]

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.

As Chappie rightly points out,Bailey was quite specific within his patent wording as to why he chose to use a thinner blade. whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons. No other reason was given.

To think otherwise is pure speculation.

Stewie;

 

[Jacob]

No other reason was given, but there are other very good reasons for buying the plane (and for it's phenomenal success) and having a cheaper blade was never one of them.
If Bailey really thought a cheaper blade was a seller he was obviously wrong. I think he just threw it in as an idea easy to grasp.
Nothing unusual about that - patents and inventions were always a gamble and succeeded or failed for all sorts of unforeseen reasons.

 

[D_W]

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.

Set yourself up with a white and a sandstone and a pile of rough lumber and then let us know whether or not you might prefer an iron that takes half as long to sharpen.

 

[Jacob]

It's even possible that Bailey wanted to conceal the big sharpening advantage from his competitors in case he didn't get the patent or something. They would quite correctly be doubtful about the economics of it and be thrown off the scent - as many are confused, even to this day!

The proof is in the eating - have a go with the plane and ask yourself which is it's most rewarding feature - the relative cost of the blade or any/all of the other advantages?

PS or to look at it another way - what would be the point of making such an expensive and well engineered plane if it was just to save a few pennies on the blade?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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.

 

[Jacob]

..... The guy was looking for a way to make thin cutting irons less chatter prone - and found it.

Yes - but why and what for? Could have just made them thicker.

Nothing to do with sharpening.

If not about sharpening (and quick sharpening turn-around and adjustment) then completely pointless.

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

..... The guy was looking for a way to make thin cutting irons less chatter prone - and found it.

Yes - but why and what for?

Nothing to do with sharpening.

If not about sharpening (and quick sharpening turn-around and adjustment) then completely pointless.

If you don't sharpen it's bound to be pointless.
I'll get my coat.

 

[D_W]

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.

I think when we limit ourselves to what people have printed in a specific place, we really aren't very interested in finding why stanley pretty much wiped all of the other makers off the map.

Even if stanley didn't intend the thin irons to be a sharpening advantage (which I doubt was missed when they tested subject planes), I'm sure the users of the planes figured it out pretty quickly. Anyone at a job site probably would've ground their planes with a sandstone or a washita stone, and they would not have missed that point.

It may not be in a patent, but it's a point that "just is".

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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.

 

[Jacob]

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.

Er so what?
Ease of sharpening is one of the great advantages of the Bailey design as everybody knows.
I'd guess Bailey knew this very well - but felt no particular need to put it in the patent and kept it simple instead. A smart commercial move perhaps?

 

[D_W]

You're missing the point. Regardless of what the patents say, the ability to sharpen the irons more easily, especially for anyone who is traveling to a work site, is a big deal.

 

[bridger]

Language evolves. Today we think of the word economy as singly referring to financial matters. It wasnt always so.

 

[iNewbie]

This is turning into a touch of contrafibularity....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08

 

[swagman]

My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-irontends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed. https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7244 ... cUCh01MgcM

Bailey's motivation for using thinner plane irons is clearly stated within the wording of his patent; whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _72443.htm