Bench Plane - Sharpening/Tuning question

[Jacob]

That's a straw man, Jacob. I certainly didn't suggest pushing a cutting edge that far although the fore plane I sharpened in the video had planed a lot more than I normally would between sharpenings. Both those planes had spent two long days as demo planes at a show.

What are you bringing up architectural doors for? You need molding planes to make architectural doors. Show me how you sharpen a molding plane with your method. Traditional techniques work just as well for profiled molding plane irons as it does for straight irons. One can sharpen gouges, molding plane irons or skewed irons using traditional sharpening. With your "rounded bevel" method one is locked into only sharpening the easy to sharpen tools just as rigidly as if one was tinkering around with a honing guide. The stuff on your web site has a decidedly rectilinear look to it. Maybe if you learned to sharpen you could progress beyond that.

I sharpen moulding planes differently (but not that differently). They aren't shown on my site.
I have learned to sharpen thanks - mainly by ignoring almost all the (contemporary) advice offered in mags and forums!
NB "rounded bevel" isn't a method - it's merely an incidental byproduct of a trad quick and easy sharpening system. Novices are advised to avoid it in case they are cheating by rounding over.

I posted about it in this thread flattening-chisel-backs-with-lapping-film-t68506-225.html

 

[Duncumb.fc]

The point was Jacob, showing how quickly 800ft could be reached.
800ft is not an unfathomable amount.

It's a lot, it would be reached slowly, and in reality the plane would be honed many times before you got there.[/quote]

So because you reckon 800ft would take a long time to get to, then you're skeptical of the science?

Fraser

 

[G S Haydon]

Thanks for the link Iw, nice video.

On the basis of sharing vids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F5aSs2ureQ I really like this one. Not for everyone I'm sure and he could of shared some info on plane blade shape for a smoother. That said I really like it!

 

[Jacob]

The point was Jacob, showing how quickly 800ft could be reached.
800ft is not an unfathomable amount.

It's a lot, it would be reached slowly, and in reality the plane would be honed many times before you got there.

So because you reckon 800ft would take a long time to get to, then you're skeptical of the science?

Fraser

I'm sceptical of the science because it doesn't seem to correlate with reality. Par for the course in woodwork theory discussions!

 

[Duncumb.fc]

The point was Jacob, showing how quickly 800ft could be reached.
800ft is not an unfathomable amount.

It's a lot, it would be reached slowly, and in reality the plane would be honed many times before you got there.

So because you reckon 800ft would take a long time to get to, then you're skeptical of the science?

Fraser

I'm sceptical of the science because it doesn't seem to correlate with reality. Par for the course in woodwork theory discussions!

Did you not read the post? It's a drawing of the blade edges as wear forms. It's irrelevant that it's a shoulder plane, it could be any plane with the same angle. It's probably also largely irrelevant what wood it is, a harder wood will wear the blade faster.
It wasn't there to tell you not to sharpen your blade until you hit 800ft, nor anything else. It was just an interesting illustration of what wear does to a blade.
How does that not correlate with reality?

Fraser

 

[Jacob]

Firstly because we have no idea of how B Beech did his 800ft of planing and obtained his result. 800ft is a lot of planing - if he was actually using it as a shoulder plane on end grain I doubt he would get anywhere near 800 ft before he had an impossibly blunt stump, even on softwood.
Secondly in practice it is not necessary to "flatten" surfaces (beyond the flattening produced by taking the burr from the face - see my link above) - so to complete his experiment he needs to explain this* or demonstrate its falsity. So far he only has a hypothesis, albeit supposedly based on his experimental observations.

NB 800 shavings at 0.0015 to 0.002" taken from a 12" timber would take off 1.2 to 1.5 inches. Try it and see how you go!

*PS had a look at BB's site here
He answers the question in the 3rd drawing down. That's roughly what most of us do i.e. take off a lot of the bevel and just skim the face. He says "Unfortunately, you also shorten the iron quite a bit". This is true except it's not unfortunate, as it removes much less metal than his alternative suggestion of flattening the face equally. There you go - he's wrong and thats all there is to it! Phew!

 

[Duncumb.fc]

Firstly because we have no idea of how B Beech did his 800ft of planing and obtained his result. 800ft is a lot of planing - if he was actually using it as a shoulder plane on end grain I doubt he would get anywhere near 800 ft before he had an impossibly blunt stump, even on softwood.
Secondly in practice it is not necessary to "flatten" surfaces (beyond the flattening produced by taking the burr from the face - see my link above) - so to complete his experiment he needs to explain this* or demonstrate its falsity. So far he only has a hypothesis, albeit supposedly based on his experimental observations.

NB 800 shavings at 0.0015 to 0.002" taken from a 12" timber would take off 1.2 to 1.5 inches. Try it and see how you go!

I am yet to understand why, when one was doing an experiment, that someone could not make 800 passes on a piece of wood? Do our bodies stop working after 100 passes or something?
Whether or not you think you should hone before this, this experiment merely shows what happens when you don't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Fraser

 

[Jacob]

....
I am yet to understand why, when one was doing an experiment, that someone could not make 800 passes on a piece of wood? Do our bodies stop working after 100 passes or something?
Whether or not you think you should hone before this, this experiment merely shows what happens when you don't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Fraser

Edges go blunt. Try doing 800 passes on a 12" board. You obviously haven't done much planing which I guess is why you find this hard to understand.

 

[G S Haydon]

Just had a look at BB's site. Wow! That's one in depth look into sharpening. A little heavy for me I must admit. The only thing that springs to mind is were the edges of older craftspeople not good enough?
Does this system offer a paradigm shift to a much sharper edge? I'm not sure. I should trial the system for myself to find out, sadly I am not likely to do so. I have found my edges to be adequately sharp over the years. I don't find myself thinking "I could do with a sharper edge here" (although fully respecting some do and that's cool with me and perhaps this system is a tonic for those people).
For the past decade or more I have just used a tormek and edges have been great. Recently I tried the P Sellers method and found a convex bevel was not for me, nor were diamond plates. Right now, on my personal tools (not my day job tools) a Norton Oil stone is just fine. Just like the guy in the vid I posted.
Thanks again for posting the link to BB's site.

 

[lwilliams]

Brent Beach never learned one can control the wear bevel on the flat face. Don't confuse his site with Steve Elliot's.

 

[Jacob]

Brent Beach never learned one can control the wear bevel on the flat face. Don't confuse his site with Steve Elliot's.

I think to avoid confusion I'll ignore them both! :lol:

 

[Corneel]

NB 800 shavings at 0.0015 to 0.002" taken from a 12" timber would take off 1.2 to 1.5 inches. Try it and see how you go!

You can plane a rabbet of that size without honing in between. You wouldn't take such thin shavings of course, and the blade would be quite blunt at the end, but it is doable. So I don't quite understand your abjection to this test from Brent Beech? He surely wasn't planing endgrain in his test.

In his diagrams you can see that the clearance angle starts to dissapear after 100 lineal feet, a good point to do a quick hone if you like to work with a sharp blade.

What I remember from his site is that he advocates a small backbevel to deal with the wear on the face side of the blade.

Oops, I think I mixed up Eliot and Beech too.

 

[Duncumb.fc]

....
I am yet to understand why, when one was doing an experiment, that someone could not make 800 passes on a piece of wood? Do our bodies stop working after 100 passes or something?
Whether or not you think you should hone before this, this experiment merely shows what happens when you don't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Fraser

Edges go blunt. Try doing 800 passes on a 12" board. You obviously haven't done much planing which I guess is why you find this hard to understand.

Actually, the lazy carpenter I am when it comes to sharpening, I wouldn't be surprised if my jack had done over 800ft. Yes, it's not sharp anymore, yes I should sharpen it, but yes, it still works for what I need it to do.
You remind me of someone I knew at school. When someone was persistent in an argument with him, whether he was right or wrong, he would suddenly start attacking the other person and making accusations, completely needlessly. He was 15. Are you 15 Jacob?

Fraser

 

[Jacob]

........
You remind me of someone I knew at school. When someone was persistent in an argument with him, whether he was right or wrong, he would suddenly start attacking the other person and making accusations, completely needlessly. He was 15. Are you 15 Jacob?

Fraser

What accusations?
NB it'd be better not to adopt that childish bickering tone - grow up a bit duncumb, you are not at school now!
These threads go like this - trench warfare from entrenched positions with no advances. Though I'm quite pleased to have nailed the face flattening fallacy - to my satisfaction, if not anybody elses.

 

[Duncumb.fc]

You obviously haven't done much planing which I guess is why you find this hard to understand.

 

[Carl P]

These threads go like this - trench warfare from entrenched positions with no advances.

Alas, 'tis the truth

 

[Jacob]

You throw in rather too many slightly sarcastic asides yourself. I suggest you stop it, or they'll all join in!

Why is this so hard to understand?.....
Think before you post, it'll save us all a lot of bother.....
your argument is somewhat ridiculous here......

 

[Duncumb.fc]

You throw in rather too many slightly sarcastic asides yourself. I suggest you stop it, or they'll all join in!

Why is this so hard to understand?.....
Think before you post, it'll save us all a lot of bother.....
your argument is somewhat ridiculous here......

Sorry Jacob, didn't realise you were a saint.

Fraser