Sorry Derek, can you explain the science behind the bit in bold please? I get that pushing lower is more efficient, but what's the difference between bevel up and bevel down? The handles are in the same place.
Bevel-up, angle low: woodworker confused..
- Thread starter charley1968
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Sorry Derek, can you explain the science behind the bit in bold please? I get that pushing lower is more efficient, but what's the difference between bevel up and bevel down? The handles are in the same place.
custard
Established Member
Here's a photo of a Bubinga slab that I'm about to plane by hand, because at over 600mm wide (and thats just the heart wood) it's too big for my machines. The piece at the end is an off-cut from the same board with some finish applied so you can see the incredible curl in the grain. Boards like this don't pose the very worst tear out problem I've ever encountered, but I know from experience that a regular 45 degree pitch plane with anything like "normal" settings will just rip it to shreds.
Here are the bench planes I'll use. A wooden plane with a closely set cap iron, a Bailey plane with a 55 degree frog, a Bailey Plane with a 15 degree back bevel, a Bailey plane with a closely set cap iron, and a bevel up plane with a 60 degree effective angle.
I've done this type and scale of work many times before, so I've got a decent idea of what to expect. Here's another finished slab for the same client that was hand planed, this will be the 8th or 9th waney edged, slab topped desk for this particular client, and I've done many others for other clients. Incidentally, these are work station desks in a design agency, they'll have computer keyboards on them, which means they have to be flat enough to prevent a keyboard rocking. That rules out power sanding, sanding would get them smooth, but it wouldn't get them flat. Scraping? Maybe for the very final finish, but bringing down an ultra hard surface by any material amount when it's many square feet in size with a scraper doesn't bear thinking about. The only practical way of dealing with this is with a bench plane, even then it's monumentally hard graft. And that's something that often get's ignored in these discussions. It's one thing to waft a plane over a little off-cut, but when you scale the task up to real world dimensions then even small differences in work load become really important. I'm not looking for some theoretical optimum planing solution, I'm looking for the physically easiest solution that still delivers a flat, tear out free surface.
Here's close up of the figure on this other slab. There's ripple, there's interlocked grain, and this particular timber actually sinks in water so it's exceptionally hard to work. I normally spread these jobs over a couple of days, interspersing them with other builds to get a break.
I'll let you know how I get on.
Here are the bench planes I'll use. A wooden plane with a closely set cap iron, a Bailey plane with a 55 degree frog, a Bailey Plane with a 15 degree back bevel, a Bailey plane with a closely set cap iron, and a bevel up plane with a 60 degree effective angle.
I've done this type and scale of work many times before, so I've got a decent idea of what to expect. Here's another finished slab for the same client that was hand planed, this will be the 8th or 9th waney edged, slab topped desk for this particular client, and I've done many others for other clients. Incidentally, these are work station desks in a design agency, they'll have computer keyboards on them, which means they have to be flat enough to prevent a keyboard rocking. That rules out power sanding, sanding would get them smooth, but it wouldn't get them flat. Scraping? Maybe for the very final finish, but bringing down an ultra hard surface by any material amount when it's many square feet in size with a scraper doesn't bear thinking about. The only practical way of dealing with this is with a bench plane, even then it's monumentally hard graft. And that's something that often get's ignored in these discussions. It's one thing to waft a plane over a little off-cut, but when you scale the task up to real world dimensions then even small differences in work load become really important. I'm not looking for some theoretical optimum planing solution, I'm looking for the physically easiest solution that still delivers a flat, tear out free surface.
Here's close up of the figure on this other slab. There's ripple, there's interlocked grain, and this particular timber actually sinks in water so it's exceptionally hard to work. I normally spread these jobs over a couple of days, interspersing them with other builds to get a break.
I'll let you know how I get on.
Attachments
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 2,974
- Reaction score
- 884
This should be a great test custard, looking forward to how you get on.
Cheers for taking the time to share your experience.
Cheers for taking the time to share your experience.
custard":3k3id23f said:
I take back what I said about not wanting to plane it, it's a very attractive slab, and I'd love to plane it.
On curl like that, I'd still only use the cap iron. If the earlywood is soft and leaves a scuffy kind of finish that invites blotch, it would take very little card scraping to really work that out of it. I'd hate to plane it with a high angle plane, it'll be twice as much work.
I wouldn't advice grinding by hand. It's possible but very slow even with a coarse diamond plate. If desperate it's quite fast with coarse wet n dry in a pool of white spirit (i.e. paper backed not cloth, not stuck down).Jacob":265zp59j said:
Pro edge pays for itself - it's much better than a wheel.[/quote]
If done with old irons with a norton crystolon, and refreshed at each sharpening, it's just an extra step in the sharpening program - 15 or 20 seconds each sharpening. Of course, I'd believe the number of people who can do it accurately when I see it. I keep a set of ward chisels that way, and one stanley iron (rather than grinding them on a dry wheel) just out of curiosity. It gets tedious when we try to hone 6 times and then grind a bevel by hand. It's a lot like hand woodworking vs. power tools - when the tools change, the protocol is a little bit different.
I wouldn't want to do it with powder metal 66 hardness irons 1/4th inch thick, though!
iNewbie
Established Member
Relax and have a Krispy Kreme Dave - it was his sarcasm-meds for the morning.
iNewbie
Established Member
D_W":2h8tig9r said:
He does and they do - some people just waited 10 hours for the doors to open! :shock:
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/doughnut_fa ... _1_4681453
custard
Established Member
I guess DW has seen this movie many times before!
First to fail in flattening the Bubinga Slab was the 55 degree frog. Besides the fact that it's very hard to push a 55 degree frog on a full width iron, you can still get traces of tear out on some timbers, as seen here,
I'm not knocking high bed angles. If I was a 19th century furniture maker working Oak or Mahogany all day every day then a 50 degree bed angle would be pretty much my first choice, it's not that much harder graft than a 45 degree frog, but it removes tear out in almost all cases on the everyday hardwoods you'd likely encounter. It's much harder work though on end grain and on softwoods it's also less than ideal. Maybe that's why Victorian and Edwardian woodworkers took to block planes? 55 degrees is surprisingly much harder work still, that's the point where the effort seems to climb exponentially. Also the planed surface isn't always that great, it's virtually useless on end grain, but for most timbers it's a certain antidote to tear out. I guess it explains why it's so common to find single iron moulding planes with a 55 degree pitch, the iron is generally narrower than with a bench plane so for hardwood mouldings that would be a good compromise.
After that all the planes worked, in that they all delivered efficiently thick shavings with no tear out. I've occasionally encountered timbers where 60 degrees isn't enough, but they're pretty rare and are often quirky situations. So given that all the planes worked, which worked best? As DW predicted, for my money it's usually a wooden bodied jack with a close set cap iron.
I can't fully explain why, it's certainly not sentimentality in that I don't favour old tools just because they're old. It's still very hard work, but it's that bit less brutal than with any of the metal bodied planes, and you don't keep having to stop and wax the sole. I use two irons in this plane, a heavily cambered one to begin followed by a more regular camber, both with the cap iron about as close as I can get it. In both cases I'm aiming for thick shavings. I don't really get the modern obsession with gossamer thin shavings, the objective is to remove wood, so as long as you're not tearing out the surface why not aim to remove it quickly with as few strokes as possible?
After a couple of hours work there's a reasonable level of flatness across all of the top.
And now it's time to move on to turning a flat top into a smooth top. I could carry on with the wooden bodied plane. On some projects I definitely would, for example a 14 plus seater dining table is probably going to be 1.2 metres wide or wider, that's too big to efficiently reach into the centre, so you'll likely be kneeling on the workpiece and in that situation a higher wooden bodied plane is ideal. However, when I go back to finish the job tomorrow I'll probably choose the Record Jack with a closely set cap iron. At this stage the workload advantages of a closely set cap iron over a higher pitch is smaller, but it's still there, especially in very hard woods.
If I was working on my bench instead of on trestles, I'd definitely abandon the wooden bodied plane as soon as possible. I prefer a bench height that means a wooden bodied plane is too high and ungainly, instead of saving effort it starts to cost effort. Also even though wooden bodied planes are dead cheap most of them need a fair bit of work that's probably beyond the capabilities of a newcomer. Taking out wind and patching a sole, both with real precision, aren't simple challenges. Plus there's the fact that finding an old iron without pitting and then getting the cap iron to mate perfectly are headaches that a newbie could probably do without. Likewise I'm not going to completely endorse an old Bailey plane, there are many of the same issues plus you'll often get loads of slop in the depth of cut wheel which is an irritation. For some reason there seem to be plenty of old Record and Stanley irons that are convex on the flat, non bevel surface. I've heard that a blow with a nylon hammer will fix this, maybe, but it's never worked for me. So that means a long spell at a stone to achieve a cap iron mating surface that won't get jammed with shavings. All of these problems are pretty much avoided with a modern, premium hand plane, which means you can be up and working straight from the box. But if you're lucky, or have the patience to fix the problems, then an old Bailey will do almost everything you want, and with a closely set cap iron can do it all tear out free!
First to fail in flattening the Bubinga Slab was the 55 degree frog. Besides the fact that it's very hard to push a 55 degree frog on a full width iron, you can still get traces of tear out on some timbers, as seen here,
I'm not knocking high bed angles. If I was a 19th century furniture maker working Oak or Mahogany all day every day then a 50 degree bed angle would be pretty much my first choice, it's not that much harder graft than a 45 degree frog, but it removes tear out in almost all cases on the everyday hardwoods you'd likely encounter. It's much harder work though on end grain and on softwoods it's also less than ideal. Maybe that's why Victorian and Edwardian woodworkers took to block planes? 55 degrees is surprisingly much harder work still, that's the point where the effort seems to climb exponentially. Also the planed surface isn't always that great, it's virtually useless on end grain, but for most timbers it's a certain antidote to tear out. I guess it explains why it's so common to find single iron moulding planes with a 55 degree pitch, the iron is generally narrower than with a bench plane so for hardwood mouldings that would be a good compromise.
After that all the planes worked, in that they all delivered efficiently thick shavings with no tear out. I've occasionally encountered timbers where 60 degrees isn't enough, but they're pretty rare and are often quirky situations. So given that all the planes worked, which worked best? As DW predicted, for my money it's usually a wooden bodied jack with a close set cap iron.
I can't fully explain why, it's certainly not sentimentality in that I don't favour old tools just because they're old. It's still very hard work, but it's that bit less brutal than with any of the metal bodied planes, and you don't keep having to stop and wax the sole. I use two irons in this plane, a heavily cambered one to begin followed by a more regular camber, both with the cap iron about as close as I can get it. In both cases I'm aiming for thick shavings. I don't really get the modern obsession with gossamer thin shavings, the objective is to remove wood, so as long as you're not tearing out the surface why not aim to remove it quickly with as few strokes as possible?
After a couple of hours work there's a reasonable level of flatness across all of the top.
And now it's time to move on to turning a flat top into a smooth top. I could carry on with the wooden bodied plane. On some projects I definitely would, for example a 14 plus seater dining table is probably going to be 1.2 metres wide or wider, that's too big to efficiently reach into the centre, so you'll likely be kneeling on the workpiece and in that situation a higher wooden bodied plane is ideal. However, when I go back to finish the job tomorrow I'll probably choose the Record Jack with a closely set cap iron. At this stage the workload advantages of a closely set cap iron over a higher pitch is smaller, but it's still there, especially in very hard woods.
If I was working on my bench instead of on trestles, I'd definitely abandon the wooden bodied plane as soon as possible. I prefer a bench height that means a wooden bodied plane is too high and ungainly, instead of saving effort it starts to cost effort. Also even though wooden bodied planes are dead cheap most of them need a fair bit of work that's probably beyond the capabilities of a newcomer. Taking out wind and patching a sole, both with real precision, aren't simple challenges. Plus there's the fact that finding an old iron without pitting and then getting the cap iron to mate perfectly are headaches that a newbie could probably do without. Likewise I'm not going to completely endorse an old Bailey plane, there are many of the same issues plus you'll often get loads of slop in the depth of cut wheel which is an irritation. For some reason there seem to be plenty of old Record and Stanley irons that are convex on the flat, non bevel surface. I've heard that a blow with a nylon hammer will fix this, maybe, but it's never worked for me. So that means a long spell at a stone to achieve a cap iron mating surface that won't get jammed with shavings. All of these problems are pretty much avoided with a modern, premium hand plane, which means you can be up and working straight from the box. But if you're lucky, or have the patience to fix the problems, then an old Bailey will do almost everything you want, and with a closely set cap iron can do it all tear out free!
Attachments
custard
Established Member
I think their logic Droogs is that an apprentice doesn't have a huge budget for tools, and besides they don't want to spend more training time fettling more than one bench plane. So the single bench plane that can tackle every job a client might possibly bring is the number seven.
I can see the logic in that, and for a skint teenager with forearms like a stud bull a number seven is a cracking choice.
The problem is it's heavy, unwieldy, and takes up a load of space on your bench. I still use one, mainly for jointing the edges of long boards, but for most day to day work I prefer something smaller and lighter.
I can see the logic in that, and for a skint teenager with forearms like a stud bull a number seven is a cracking choice.
The problem is it's heavy, unwieldy, and takes up a load of space on your bench. I still use one, mainly for jointing the edges of long boards, but for most day to day work I prefer something smaller and lighter.
That was a good story! You know you're in pretty deep when you have to limit tearout at the jacking stage (of course on a board like that, there is no safe direction).
Agree on the sentiment about using a 7 for everything, too. If that was a good method, people would've used it 200 years ago.
Agree on the sentiment about using a 7 for everything, too. If that was a good method, people would've used it 200 years ago.
David C
In Memorium
Is that a high precision German straight edge?? Like wot I use to test plane soles.
David ~;-)#
David ~;-)#
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yes I'm not completely insane. It's much better than a wheel.D_W":hjcoqqmq said:
Grinding by hand without machine is possible but hard work. Helps if you have a long blade holder - say 2ft 2x1" with a saw kerf in the end to hold the blade. The work pressure holds the blade steady in a loose slot. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that - though you could round off the edges for comfort. Basically you can put a lot more pressure on a blade in a long handle. Both hands and body weight.
I like Custards story! I'll make more effort with woodies - I've got drawers full of them.
Re 7 as the one and only - I was taught 5 1/2 was the perfect plane. Only a bit smaller than a 7 and I'd still choose it if I had to. We also had one double sided oil stone - so with one plane and one stone you could do almost everything.
David C
In Memorium
A couple of people have mentioned the difficulty of maintaining a consistent cambered bevel for bevel up planes.
I believe the new SE-77 jig for the Tormek has solved this problem.
We shot some video this morning, which will appear on my You Tube channel soon.
The jig has successfully ground camber, suitable for my bench plane, block plane and bevel up plane.
This is the first time I have had a reliable and repeatable method for this task.
It saves many many strokes on a coarse stone!
Best wishes,
David
I believe the new SE-77 jig for the Tormek has solved this problem.
We shot some video this morning, which will appear on my You Tube channel soon.
The jig has successfully ground camber, suitable for my bench plane, block plane and bevel up plane.
This is the first time I have had a reliable and repeatable method for this task.
It saves many many strokes on a coarse stone!
Best wishes,
David
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
I'll look out for it, David, but I find this surprising.
What type of camber? For a jack, or for a smoother?
Would anyone wish to grind the minute camber for a smoother? I don't see that as realistic - the amount of camber is too small to grind reliably. It is safer to hone it in with a 1000 waterstone. As mentioned before, I add a high secondary microbevel on a 25 degree primary bevel.
As for a jack, the large amount of camber (between 8 - 10" radius) is not any different from a BD plane since it is done on a 25 degree bevel. A BU plane requires about 1/2" more radius than a BD plane owing for the lower bed angle.
Regards from Perth
Derek
What type of camber? For a jack, or for a smoother?
Would anyone wish to grind the minute camber for a smoother? I don't see that as realistic - the amount of camber is too small to grind reliably. It is safer to hone it in with a 1000 waterstone. As mentioned before, I add a high secondary microbevel on a 25 degree primary bevel.
As for a jack, the large amount of camber (between 8 - 10" radius) is not any different from a BD plane since it is done on a 25 degree bevel. A BU plane requires about 1/2" more radius than a BD plane owing for the lower bed angle.
Regards from Perth
Derek
David C
In Memorium
Derek,
Good point.
For the 62 bevel up jack, the 2" blade showed 0.5mm of light at the edges when presented vertically to a flat surface. The jig would have done more, I have not explored the maximum.
For my favorite 5 1/2 I find about 0.2 mm to be good for squaring edges, and may use less for wide surfaces.
I enjoy grinding this small camber even if it is not absolutely necessary.
My block planes get camber for the same edge squaring ability, and this is significant because of the low bedding angle.
Do you have a Tormek any more? If so I think you would appreciate this jig which is very clever.
best wishes,
David
Good point.
For the 62 bevel up jack, the 2" blade showed 0.5mm of light at the edges when presented vertically to a flat surface. The jig would have done more, I have not explored the maximum.
For my favorite 5 1/2 I find about 0.2 mm to be good for squaring edges, and may use less for wide surfaces.
I enjoy grinding this small camber even if it is not absolutely necessary.
My block planes get camber for the same edge squaring ability, and this is significant because of the low bedding angle.
Do you have a Tormek any more? If so I think you would appreciate this jig which is very clever.
best wishes,
David
AJB Temple
Finely figured
Custard. Posy above (with pics) was very interesting. Thank you for making the effort. AJ
