edge planing

[Paul Kierstead]

There's nothing wrong in aiming for perfection. Aim for the stars and you might reach the moon, aim for the north and you might break down at Watford!

Surely as hobbyists, isn't the persuit of perfection that drives us to our next project? Rather than just trying to crank out as many 'it'll-do' projects?

"Obsessed" was the word, not "aiming". Obsession is when you lose sight of the goal and get caught up in the details, and the goal has nothing at all with "it'll do", or just getting it done. The goal (for me at least) is to produce beautiful furniture with my own hands. Having your table lip at 89 degrees instead on 90 is not sloppy and is not an "it'll do" attitude. In fact, having it at 90 won't add a damn thing, so not only won't you reach the moon, you won't achieve anything at all. Obsessing over a perfect 90 degree edge where it doesn't matter is just jointer masturbation (or ******y if you like). In fact, in some cases, you would probably be better off without "perfection"; the top of a drawer front is quite possibly better off tipped ever so slightly inward. What does matter is that it looks good, and perfect jointing has very very little to do with that. Actually, "perfection", as typically pursued by engineers (and I am one), is actually probably the enemy of good aesthetics.

Now I still believe that good jointing skills are really important, and to achieve that it is definitely important to hold the plane correctly (although there is definitely more then one correct way) and use the correct methodology (and many believe there is more then one correct methodology). And when I joint (and I only joint by hand), I often aim for 90 (when I think it is appropriate), but I only obsess over it if it will really affect the outcome (ex. butt joint); otherwise I establish a working rhythm that does far more for quality then sweating over a sliver of light under the square. And, of course, I am steadily trying to learn to use hand-tool methods of construction too. Example: I am building a small, one-drawer, table. The front rails are flush with the legs in this design. So, rather then perfectly joint and size the front of the rail, I'll let it overhang a little and plane to the leg. Very visually appealing result, no perfect jointing required. Trying to perfectly joint and size the rail prior to assembly would be the power tool methodology, not the hand tool one (for fitting). OTOH, the legs had to be really well done, or it could make building pretty painful. And if the rail had a reveal instead of being flush, you would get some forgiveness on the sizing (no one cares +/- 1/32" on the reveal size), but the angle of the jointing would be pretty critical since the reveal will magnify any error. However, the correct way to get it "right", would be to joint and test in place, not joint and check with your square. When it looks good on the piece, it is good, not when it looks good on the square.

Ok ok, rambling off.

 

[ByronBlack]

There's nothing wrong in aiming for perfection. Aim for the stars and you might reach the moon, aim for the north and you might break down at Watford!

Surely as hobbyists, isn't the persuit of perfection that drives us to our next project? Rather than just trying to crank out as many 'it'll-do' projects?

"Obsessed" was the word, not "aiming". Obsession is when you lose sight of the goal and get caught up in the details, and the goal has nothing at all with "it'll do", or just getting it done. The goal (for me at least) is to produce beautiful furniture with my own hands. Having your table lip at 89 degrees instead on 90 is not sloppy and is not an "it'll do" attitude. In fact, having it at 90 won't add a damn thing, so not only won't you reach the moon, you won't achieve anything at all. Obsessing over a perfect 90 degree edge where it doesn't matter is just jointer masturbation (or ******y if you like). In fact, in some cases, you would probably be better off without "perfection"; the top of a drawer front is quite possibly better off tipped ever so slightly inward. What does matter is that it looks good, and perfect jointing has very very little to do with that. Actually, "perfection", as typically pursued by engineers (and I am one), is actually probably the enemy of good aesthetics.

Now I still believe that good jointing skills are really important, and to achieve that it is definitely important to hold the plane correctly (although there is definitely more then one correct way) and use the correct methodology (and many believe there is more then one correct methodology). And when I joint (and I only joint by hand), I often aim for 90 (when I think it is appropriate), but I only obsess over it if it will really affect the outcome (ex. butt joint); otherwise I establish a working rhythm that does far more for quality then sweating over a sliver of light under the square. And, of course, I am steadily trying to learn to use hand-tool methods of construction too. Example: I am building a small, one-drawer, table. The front rails are flush with the legs in this design. So, rather then perfectly joint and size the front of the rail, I'll let it overhang a little and plane to the leg. Very visually appealing result, no perfect jointing required. Trying to perfectly joint and size the rail prior to assembly would be the power tool methodology, not the hand tool one (for fitting). OTOH, the legs had to be really well done, or it could make building pretty painful. And if the rail had a reveal instead of being flush, you would get some forgiveness on the sizing (no one cares +/- 1/32" on the reveal size), but the angle of the jointing would be pretty critical since the reveal will magnify any error. However, the correct way to get it "right", would be to joint and test in place, not joint and check with your square. When it looks good on the piece, it is good, not when it looks good on the square.

Ok ok, rambling off.

Feel better now?

You quite clearly noticed that I omitted the word 'obsession' for exactly the reasons that you ranted about, I was mearly stating that there was nothing wrong in aiming for perfection - obviously with the view that we won't always get there, now this discussion can all come down to a semantic picking apart of the definition of the word perfect and what that means, but lets not bother with that shall we as we are all on the same page with this one and I totally agree you. I just dared share an opinion on the matter.

 

[engineer one]

at the risk of being obsessive too :?

no actually, i have found a job for the edge plane.
i have cut some corner joints on the table saw for the drawers,
and made the tonques too long. so the edge plane is ideal for
setting them back enough. :roll:

so another project along with the new blade cover when i get the
acrylic sorted, is a working out how to use the height gauge on
the saw. :?


rather like everyone i would like to be "perfick" but i agree that one problem with much engineering is that it is too perfect, with no heart.
as a railway enthusiast, i find that pre cad design had more concern for
form as well as function. and let's not forget the greeks who invented many
of the techniques still used for making things appear tall, slim or whatever, by not having perfectly square angles. or straight columns i.e. barrels.

it is easy to aspire to perfection and ignore the beauty.
anyway back to drawer glue up
paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

Except nobody has mentioned that a cambered blade is essential for squaring an edge :shock:

You're not wrong there........ I seem to recall being taught that a jack plane required a very cambered blade, whilst a smoother or a jointer required just a smidgeon of camber. The only planes which needed a straight iron and square edges were the rebate and shoulder jobbies..... This obsession with flat blades probably stems from the Japanese waterstones which started to appear in the 1970s and which are very prone to hollowing - the result is that waterstone users tend to lose sleep over how flat their stones are and be forever flattening them.

BTW, I've just been and dug out a late 1930s Hayward book and yes, that's exactly what the great an recommends as well (cambered blades all round). One point to the traditionalists, methinks :lol:

Obsessing over a perfect 90 degree edge where it doesn't matter is just jointer m******.......

I couldn't have put it better myself. Interesting (and highly amusing) turn of phrase there, Paul :lol:

Scrit

 

[Paul Chapman]

BTW, I've just been and dug out a late 1930s Hayward book and yes, that's exactly what the great an recommends as well (cambered blades all round). One point to the traditionalists, methinks :lol:

Although Ernest Joyce/Alan Peters in their book advocate straight blades (pages 98-99, revised edition 1987) so there is disagreement even among the Masters :wink:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Anonymous]

BTW, I've just been and dug out a late 1930s Hayward book and yes, that's exactly what the great an recommends as well (cambered blades all round). One point to the traditionalists, methinks :lol:

Although Ernest Joyce/Alan Peters in their book advocate straight blades (pages 98-99, revised edition 1987) so there is disagreement even among the Masters :wink:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Doesn't always do to take the "old masters" burblings as gospel - they're only human.
My theory is that they do things perfectly for years there own way without thinking about it, but when called upon to write a book, or just to explain what they are doing, they refer back to what they vaguely recall as the "correct" way.
In so doing they perpetuate all the myths such as the primary and secondary bevel or the flat face etc. and we never get free of them - until we in turn get to do things perfectly our own way without thinking about it, should we be so lucky.

cheers
Jacob

 

[bugbear]

Well that seems to have covered everything :lol:
Except nobody has mentioned that a cambered blade is essential for squaring an edge :shock:

Well, I use the cambered edge approach, and have explained its use in various forums, but it's not the only way. Jim Kingshott demonstrates a different approach of taking partial width shavings using a straight blade, to achieve the desired shape via a step-wise approach, taking a final pass with the straight blade to achieve a "perfect" result. A cambered blade always leaves the edge (slightly) hollow.

BugBear

 

[dunbarhamlin]

A cambered blade always leaves the edge (slightly) hollow.

(Probably showing my igranuts here, but) isn't this the difference between truing and jointing? Most of my joints are just butt or scarf joints, and I go for a vacuum fit with my straight bladed #7 - if I can't raise a piece 6" or more off the bench by placing its mate on top and pulling up sharply, I'm not there yet - is this achievable with a cambered blade?
Cheers
Steve

 

[Paul Chapman]

is this achievable with a cambered blade?

Doubtful. One of the supposed advantages of corrugated sole planes is that they stop this type of suction. If that is true, given that a cambered blade would, in effect, give a corrugation, it would stop the suction effect.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[engineer one]

personal up date, finally, and very slowly, what with the grand prix, and cooking and tidying up getting in the way, made two drawers for the base of the cabinet.

will find my camera battery charger sometime this coming week, and will learn to post so the ln at least will know its true.

can't say they are pretty, but they are sturdy and work. cut the joints on the table saw, (sorry scrit i know its wrong, but needed to get them done ) they are a kind of lock joint. rebate into the sides, and the front and back are reversed into the slots giving a pretty strong and clean joint. because of guessing, not measuring properly, the tongues were too long, so i used the edge plane successfully to remove excess. very neat :lol:

i had already made the box for them to go into, so had to make the drawers to fit on single extension slides. used 400s, and they are in fact about 400 long, so just a little too long for the box. anyway the drawers will eventually (another tuit :? ) have false fronts.


anway i cut the drawers and made them before fitting the slides so they are too narrow. anyway since i had a number off offcuts, i found one to put between the slides and the box walls. had to plane them down slightly, and managed to do it well and quickly with my no 6 again. so i am learning. :roll:

anyway, this has and continues to be an interesting and useful thread. ta

paul :wink:

 

[dunbarhamlin]

That's what I figured - thanks Paul.
Maybe an excuse for a #6? Hmmm

 

[engineer one]

it's certainly an excuse for going to a get together and trying them all out, if possible :lol:

paul

 

[dunbarhamlin]

If you can convince the NHS to put their payroll on hold because there's a Very Important Bash coming up I'll do just that

 

[Alf]

Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere?

Cheers, Alf

 

[Scrit]

Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere?

Another reason for using a cambered blade?

Scrit

 

[dunbarhamlin]

Hmmm, will have to do some experimenting.

Expect you're right, though probably moot given diminutive size of my joints. Certainly all accounts of rubbed joints I've seen do suggest a whisker of dishing for the surfaces.

Though using hot hide I haven't managed to break a neck on the scarf glue line when I've tried - usually the headstock fractures 1/4" above (after considerable abuse - and these are usually necks I'm not happy with)

Steve

 

[Paul Chapman]

Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere?

I was wondering about this myself - does it depend a bit on the glue one uses :-k I've never used animal glue myself, but where one does and uses rubbed joints where you rub them until the glue grabs, I would have thought a joint with as much suction as possible (ie dead flat surfaces achieved with a straight blade) would be better. With cold glues, used with cramps, slight hollowness wouldn't matter. But as I say, I've never used animal glue, so I'm only thinking aloud :wink:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[dunbarhamlin]

As I don't make carved instruments (yet), I haven't used this, but I think the idea behind a HHG rubbed joint is that as the glue gels the very slight hollowing renders it self clamping (after all, higher gram hide glues are used to etch glass - insane amount of pulling power)

 

[Alf]

Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere?

Another reason for using a cambered blade?

S'what I was thinking, yes.

Cheers, Alf

 

[dchenard]

Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere?

Cheers, Alf

"Conventional wisdom" has it that the mating surfaces should be tight. Fine Woodworking has a test on glues in their latest issue and they come up with interesting results. For one, "tight" joints (ones that require persuasion to drive together) are usually stronger than snug ones, and looser joints are weaker still, although strong enough with most glues (polyurethane being the worst exception).

Although their study was done using bridle joints and not edge ones, it remains that gappy joints are weaker than tight ones. I have no data to support this, but it seems to me that a cambered joint introduces a gap just where we don't want one. Granted, the gap is small, still it's there, and I'd rather just to without a potential joint failure cause.

I might be overcautious, but when there's a better alternative available (straight, match-planed edge boards), why bother?

As for the glue, it seeps into the wood pores, there's no need for a "reservoir" for it.

Cheers,

DC