Closely Set Cap Iron

[swagman]

Is Ron Hock is also stuck in the pre-2012 era,

Chip Breakers
Cap Irons (Chip Breakers, Back Irons, etc.) for Traditional Stanley Planes. To maximize your plane's performance, a thicker chip breaker (cap iron) can stabilize the blade's cutting edge reducing vibration and chatter. Set your breaker very close to the cutting edge to best prevent tear-out. HOCK Chip Breakers are 3mm thick (.118"), almost twice as thick as a stock chip breaker. A knurled cap screw is included. http://www.hocktools.com/products/bp.html

What has made this discussion all the more confusing, is when you read comments from someone who has a very close liaison with LV/ Veritas, as an web based Tool Reviewer, openly criticizing LN (a competing manufacturer) as being stuck in the pre-2012 era with their interpretation on the role of the Cap Iron, but when you visit LV/ Veritas own site, they are applying the exact same description. Its either LV/ Veritas are promoting a description that is totally out of sink with their own beliefs, or the person suggesting those descriptions are out-dated, is applying his own independent understanding that contradicts that being supplied by LV/ Veritas.

My own personal view which in part focuses on Baileys use of an 0.085" thin Plane Iron, is that the Cap Iron served 3 important purposes, the 1st as a connection point for the adjuster yoke, 2nd as a tensioner to reduced chatter and vibration felt through the cutting edge, 3rd, as a methodology to reduce tear-out on reverse grain.

Moving on to the current trend by manufacturers in supplying a much thicker Plane Iron. imo,this redirects the Cap Irons role further away from that of a tensioner to the Plane Iron, and more towards a role to inhibit tear-out. Bearing this in mind, what's unclear to me, is why the need to also increase the Cap Irons thickness.

I would like to also include my own thoughts on the use of the Cap Iron within traditional Wedge Abutment Bench Planes. 2 important considerations. 1st, the general shape of these thicker tapered irons used in both single and double iron format are near identical if you discount the slot that's used as mating point for the Cap Iron. 2nd, a wooden bed is better able absorb vibration emanating from the cutting edge, compared to that of a metal bed. Bearing both those factors in mind, imo, the role of the Cap Iron was less directed to that of providing additional tension to the Plane Iron, and more directed towards supplying a different type of approach to that being supplied by a high angle bed, in reducing the potential of tear-out on reverse grain.

As a final wrap up, note the additional tension supplied within the shaping of the Cap Iron used on a Bailey/Stanley Plane, to that of a Cap Iron used in conjunction with a tapered iron on a Wooden Bench Plane.

http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/images/935d.jpg



Stewie;

 

[D_W]

Its unfortunate that Ron Hock is also stuck in the pre-2012 era,

Chip Breakers
Cap Irons (Chip Breakers, Back Irons, etc.) for Traditional Stanley Planes. To maximize your plane's performance, a thicker chip breaker (cap iron) can stabilize the blade's cutting edge reducing vibration and chatter. Set your breaker very close to the cutting edge to best prevent tear-out. HOCK Chip Breakers are 3mm thick (.118"), almost twice as thick as a stock chip breaker. A knurled cap screw is included. http://www.hocktools.com/products/bp.html

That doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Is Ron Hock is also stuck in the pre-2012 era,

Chip Breakers
Cap Irons (Chip Breakers, Back Irons, etc.) for Traditional Stanley Planes. To maximize your plane's performance, a thicker chip breaker (cap iron) can stabilize the blade's cutting edge reducing vibration and chatter. Set your breaker very close to the cutting edge to best prevent tear-out. HOCK Chip Breakers are 3mm thick (.118"), almost twice as thick as a stock chip breaker. A knurled cap screw is included. http://www.hocktools.com/products/bp.html

What has made this discussion all the more confusing, is when you read comments from someone who has a very close liaison with LV/ Veritas, as an web based Tool Reviewer, openly criticizing LN (a competing manufacturer) as being stuck in the pre-2012 era with their interpretation on the role of the Cap Iron, but when you visit LV/ Veritas own site, they are applying the exact same description. Its either LV/ Veritas are promoting a description that is totally out of sink with their own beliefs, or the person suggesting those descriptions are out-dated, is applying his own independent understanding that contradicts that being supplied by LV/ Veritas.

My own personal view which goes back to Baileys use of an 0.085" thin Plane Iron, is that the Cap Iron served 3 important purposes, the 1st as a connection point for the adjuster yoke, 2nd as a tensioner to reduced chatter and vibration felt through the cutting edge, 3rd, as a methodology to reduce tear-out on reverse grain.

Moving on to the current trend by manufacturers in supplying a much thicker Plane Iron. imo,this redirects the Cap Irons role further away from that of a tensioner to the Plane Iron, and more towards a role to inhibit tear-out. Bearing this in mind, what's unclear to me, is why the need to also increase the Cap Irons thickness.

I would like to also include my own thoughts on the use of the Cap Iron within traditional Wedge Abutment Bench Planes. 2 important considerations. 1st, the general shape of these thicker tapered irons used in both single and double iron format are near identical if you discount the slot that's used as mating point for the Cap Iron. 2nd, a wooden bed is better able absorb vibration emanating from the cutting edge, compared to that of a metal bed. Bearing both those factors in mind, imo, the role of the Cap Iron was less directed to that of providing additional tension to the Plane Iron, and more directed towards supplying a different type of approach to that being supplied by a high angle bed, in reducing the potential of tear-out on reverse grain.

As a final wrap up, note the additional tension supplied within the shaping of the Cap Iron used on a Bailey/Stanley Plane, to that of a Cap Iron used in conjunction with a tapered iron on a Wooden Bench Plane.

http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/images/935d.jpg




Stewie;

Stewie, you need to leave your personal remarks at the door. I do not wish to involve the forum in your petty paranoid hysteria, but I shall if you force me too (I do have copies of your emails and personal messages to me, such as your rants at WoodNet). Leave it out! You are warned.

Anything I have written about Lie Nielsen's views on chipbreakers can be confirmed by others here. This is not my opinion alone. No doubt I could dig up comments from LN as well, but I have no energy or desire to feed your trollish behaviour. Check with David. Check with Kees. For the record, I am a big fan of LN - Thomas Lie-Nelsen in particular. LN make bloody fine tools, and I have a good number of them. I attempt to state my opinion as I see it, be it LN or LV or any other toolmaker. Lee Valley (Veritas) has produced a number of tools that I have been in a fortunate position to test at a pre-production stage, and I have attempted to share my experience and insights for the benefit of those without the same opportunity. This is entirely my choice - I am not employed by Lee Valley (or LN), as you seem to believe. If you can find fault with my observations and the results of my testing, then describe what is incorrect. I would be a fool to make a claim that cannot be supported - someone is bound will come along and replicate my experiments.

It is time that you grew up. I am tired of your constant immature sniping.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[nabs]

personal differences aside, I don't see any disagreement here - it is true that cap-irons help prevent the plane iron from flexing under shocks from knots etc and also that this is not its only benefit. There are lots of devices to improve stiffness of the blade, including making them thicker and those discussed here: https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums...tay-set-vs-mf-two-part-lever-cap-t104181.html)

...and it is surely also true that combining a thick cap iron with an already thick plane iron is gilding the lily (but harmless).

of course whether you see these various improvements as worth the money or needless frippery depends on the kind of woodwork you do (or in my case on whether you do any at all - incidentally woodwork avoidance is also a sure fire way to avoid tear-out!)

swagman I do not understand your final comment/picture - what does it show?

 

[swagman]

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I must admit I find the business of the close set cap iron somehow being a new idea amusing, having been taught it at school as a thirteen year old fifty years ago. My master trained at Shoreditch so I'd think it must have been common practice.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi Phil

The chipbreaker is not a new idea. It is centuries old. It is new to the era of Internet/book/magazine-educated woodworkers. It is a revitalised technique for most of us.

I began using handtools 22 years ago (when we built out present house). If I had been professionally trained in the UK, there seems a reasonable chance that setting the chipbreaker would have been taught. A "reasonable chance", not a given, I must emphasise. There are esteemed teachers on this forum who were not aware of this technique (and have been gracious enough to say so). For many, such as myself, having relied for content from the USA, it appears to have been largely missed by the current generation of video-based teachers. It is hard to say how well known the method was in Oz, since I have only a hazy knowledge of the curricula, but I would be surprised if it was commonly taught. There are those who now claim they knew all along, however it is interesting that few raised this technique in discussion on forums before 2012.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Sheffield Tony]

The chipbreaker is not a new idea. It is centuries old. It is new to the era of Internet/book/magazine-educated woodworkers. It is a revitalised technique for most of us.

I began using handtools 22 years ago (when we built out present house). If I had been professionally trained in the UK, there seems a reasonable chance that setting the chipbreaker would have been taught. A "reasonable chance", not a given, I must emphasise. There are esteemed teachers on this forum who were not aware of this technique (and have been gracious enough to say so).

Amazing isn't it. I'm a bit younger than Phil, but in err, about 1980, on the fringes of Sheffield in a normal big comprehensive school woodwork class, with a teacher who hadn't to the best of my knowledge trained anywhere remarkable, we learned:

How to set the cap iron to reduce tearout.
How to sharpen a plane iron or chisel on a simple oil stone, without guides.
How to file, burnish and use a cabinet scraper.
How to set a wooden plane - but there was just the odd one in the cupboard to demostrate this, we all used metal ones.
Using a combination plane, rebate plane etc.
Making and using a scratch stock.
Straightening a tenon saw.
etc etc.

Much of what I'd been taught and subsequently forgotten has come back to me through what I've seen on UK Workshop. And it makes me marvel how good our woodwork classes were back then.

 

[D_W]

Amazing isn't it. I'm a bit younger than Phil, but in err, about 1980, on the fringes of Sheffield in a normal big comprehensive school woodwork class, with a teacher who hadn't to the best of my knowledge trained anywhere remarkable, we learned:

How to set the cap iron to reduce tearout.
How to sharpen a plane iron or chisel on a simple oil stone, without guides.
How to file, burnish and use a cabinet scraper.
How to set a wooden plane - but there was just the odd one in the cupboard to demostrate this, we all used metal ones.
Using a combination plane, rebate plane etc.
Making and using a scratch stock.
Straightening a tenon saw.
etc etc.

Much of what I'd been taught and subsequently forgotten has come back to me through what I've seen on UK Workshop. And it makes me marvel how good our woodwork classes were back then.

As derek, I came upon hand tools, but maybe more in the extreme of that I don't really like using power tools at all except for the odd router or thickness planer when doing a job I don't really like (like slowly making kitchen cabinets).

I've come to everything on your list above as a matter of economy of effort, though I started far away from that in almost every instance (using progressions of sandpaper instead of scrapers, using an array of stones instead of one, etc). Well, except the saw thing - not a matter of economy of effort, but a matter of fixing saws that can be found a lot more cheaply when they're bowed.

What was popular here in the US, and still is locally, is lots of power tools and having a hand tool or two and one set of do-all chisels under the notion that you might need hand tools every once in a while to fit things, but that final work will be sanding. The local guy here still suggests to all of his students that sanding is the final step and planes and scrapers are little used. I showed him the use of a cap iron because he bought my old bench and I had a chance to bend his ear. He suggested that it was definitely interesting, but beyond the scope of what he has most of his students learn with hand tools.

I've encountered the same type of response when suggesting that it's OK to do *finish* work with hand tools when sharpening only with a single washita stone. The multi decade push for waterstones, and no suggestion of the cap iron on this side of the ocean has led people to believe planes need to be manufactured with great precision, sharpened to half a micron, and modified in some way sometimes in order to do good finishing work.

 

[JimB]

thank you Tony (from Sheffield). I've remembered Mr Fletcher who sixty years ago in Tadcaster taught us how and why to set a plane. He seemed a cantankerous bloke but his lessons have stuck over the years, including the need for workshop discipline.

 

[swagman]

Cap iron set at 0.6 to 0.8 mm.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Cap iron set at 0.6 to 0.8 mm.

So it seems from the shape of the shavings. But what are you trying to say?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[swagman]

Derek; you lost that right for me to respond to any of your questions.

 

[ac445ab]

Stewie, it seems a very good result on a "difficult" wood.
Me too, I am courious of your comments about the cap iron setting.

Ciao
Giuliano

 

[D_W]

That looks like a relatively tame pine. Is it?

I also don't understand the point.

 

[swagman]

Giuliano; can I respond by suggesting next time you hear advice recommending a dedicated clearance value with the Cap Iron, you give them a wide berth. There are a number of variables that come into play. Those include, the type of plane being used, the approach angle of the planes bed, the bevel angle on the leading edge of the Cap Iron, the density of timber being worked, the depth of shaving being taken, and the mix of straight vs curly grain. Visual indicators include, the shape of the shaving being worked, and the level of surface free tear-out being gained. Above all else, a close set cap iron is not a guaranteed panacea to control tear-out. There are a number of other options available. Those include the use of a higher than common pitch bench plane , a toothing plane, and if all else fails, you can resort to a simple hand scraper to remove any of that remaining surface tear-out.

regards Stewie;

 

[swagman]

That looks like a relatively tame pine. Is it?

I also don't understand the point.

DW; your another user I wont be responding too.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Derek; you lost that right for me to respond to any of your questions.

Yet you reply to me! :lol:

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[ac445ab]

There are a number of variables that come into play. Those include, the type of plane being used, the approach angle of the planes bed, the bevel angle on the leading edge of the Cap Iron, the density of timber being worked, the depth of shaving being taken, and the mix of straight vs curly grain. Visual indicators include, the shape of the shaving being worked, and the level of surface free tear-out being gained. Above all else, a close set cap iron is not a guaranteed panacea to control tear-out. There are a number of other options available. Those include the use of a higher than common pitch bench plane , a toothing plane, and if all else fails, you can resort to a simple hand scraper to remove any of that remaining surface tear-out.

regards Stewie;

I agree with all these points, although I have not tryed playing much with cap iron set in very close position. I'll do.

There are a number of variables that come into play. Those include, the bevel angle on the leading edge of cap iron

This is another good point. What angle could work better?

Giuliano

 

[Ttrees]

Was their tearout on that board Stewie, before altering the cap iron or changing plane ?

I would be keen to show the jack planing dimensioning surface marks first, if I was to display the cap iron effect.
I have not got much experience with setting the cap iron to get the optimum setting...
Other than experimenting with some afrormosia I have, as I've only been flattening boards so far.
Gonna make a Cosman/Klausz style bench soon.

Now waiting to get the full spacesuit setup before working on my reclaimed African timbers again...
I can't wait to enter the realm again and get into this discussion more thoroughly.
Tom