Hand planes

[custard]

You could probably skim the iron with a very fine used flap disc to achieve the same end.

I did something similar once on a Lie Nielsen iron using a Dremel. I must have been stupid to attempt it.

To make sure I didn't end up with the same sort of problems you get from rust pits on old plane irons (depressions that are too deep to be honed out) I went really slowly, which ended up taking most of a day. Madness!

If you've paid a premium price for a premium tool, and it turns out to be faulty (and a belly on the non bevel face of an iron is a fault in my book), then just return it and request a proper replacement. That's what I'd do now.

 

[ED65]

... But your plane will only take a minimum shaving of three or four thou.

You got hung up on my wording and I'm sorry about that, it would have saved some needless argument and some time for you.

I didn't mean that a 3-4 thou was the best these planes could do, I only wanted to convey that gooder examples of cheap planes like this were capable of that level with their soles taken no further than the factory machining.

Now both of my 4s (and my low-angle block plane) were capable of much thinner shavings than this, but I got very lucky there and nobody should go out expecting that when apparently a fair number of Quangsheng planes won't do that without some lapping.

After reading a conversation like this once I decided to measure shaving thickness, it was a slow work day, I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings.

Exactly.

Wood is an inherently compressible material, and shavings doubly so. It's extremely easy to under-measure shaving thickness so after reading cautionary advice online I'm conservative closing up the calipers when measuring shavings.

 

[ED65]

Re. shaving thickness and being able to read through it, here's a pine shaving taken with my Faithfull, just picked up and used as it was last set:

And the reading:

It can do thinner but it'll comfortably produce shavings which still hold together that read as this:

Here's the best shot of the sole I could snap showing the not-small mouth opening for anyone that's interested:

 

[Steve1066]

ED beat me to it
Bit of English oak



But it looks like we site carpenter/ shop fitters cheep plane, take a finer shaving and the old box makers.

 

[iNewbie]

Who is that masked rider? :ho2

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

After reading a conversation like this once I decided to measure shaving thickness, it was a slow work day, I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings.
/quote]

Since writing that I've been thinking about how to measure shavings. The most accurate way would probably be to measure the work before and after taking a pass and subtracting one from the other. I'm not going to do it because I don't really care, but if you want to know how thick your shavings are I think this would be the best method.
Paddy

 

[Steve Elliott]

Paddy,

Back in 2005 I did measure the change in thickness of a test piece to determine the thickness of shavings, taking 275 shavings that were .001" thick as far as I could measure and control the thickness. Of course as the blade wore with successive passes the shavings would become thinner.

The average shaving thickness turned out to be .0084". Given the difficulty of maintaining shaving thickness over a test that went to 1400 lineal feet of planing using several blades I couldn't decide whether the two methods were giving the same result or not. Maybe just taking a shaving or two and measuring the test piece would be a better method.

These days I just look at the shaving and know pretty closely what the actual measurement would be, but it doesn't matter much. I'm much more interested in whether the plane will do the job at hand.

 

[Steve1066]

After reading a conversation like this once I decided to measure shaving thickness, it was a slow work day, I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings.
/quote]

Since writing that I've been thinking about how to measure shavings. The most accurate way would probably be to measure the work before and after taking a pass and subtracting one from the other. I'm not going to do it because I don't really care, but if you want to know how thick your shavings are I think this would be the best method.
Paddy

your missing the point Paddy look at the plane it's a reck but it makes me money every day. It gets bounced around in back of a van it go from -3 degrees out side to +21 in side
It get used for planning old painted doors to shaving end grain mitres on hard wood bar tops.
It's haveing the knowledge and the confidence to set it up and uses it that makes this possible. Not the make, age, shape,cost or sharpening technique.
If you go back to the OP Original post it doesn't mater what age the plane is. It's learning how to set it up and use it properly with confidence that maters.
Hope the finger is feeling better

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

How can I be missing the point when I was quoting myself? It was my point! My comment on shaving thickness was in response to the conversation between ED65 and custard (and others) on shaving thickness. I'm glad your planes work to your satisfaction, as do mine.
Finger is much better, thanks
Paddy

 

[Trafalgar]

Why is it important, when would it ever be important, to know how thick a shaving is, I mean, an actual and reliable numerical measurement?

 

[skipdiver]

Why is it important, when would it ever be important, to know how thick a shaving is, I mean, an actual and reliable numerical measurement?

Must say that i have never felt the need to measure the thickness of a shaving. The plane is either taking too much off or not enough, given the job at hand.

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

Why is it important, when would it ever be important, to know how thick a shaving is, I mean, an actual and reliable numerical measurement?

The only purpose I can think of is so people can discuss/compare their planes over the internet. Whether this could count as "important" is another thing. In japan they need an actual reliable number for their planning competitions, in that situation the importance is to be compared to the importance of having an accurate reliable timings for 100m at an athletics meet. For actually making something out of wood, well, no, it's just a distraction.
Paddy

 

[Racers]

It shows how flat your plane is, thinner shaving the flatter the plane.

Pete

 

[Phil Pascoe]

So a nice even, thin shaving from my compass plane shows it's truly flat?

 

[Racers]

Yep , well as flat as your wood :shock:

Pete

 

[custard]

Why is it important, when would it ever be important, to know how thick a shaving is, I mean, an actual and reliable numerical measurement?

Fair question.

For an experienced cabinet maker it's not important. But for someone new to hardwood furniture making it can accelerate their learning by quantifying how the different tolerances across their hand tools, machinery, and joinery all fit together. It doesn't mean much to a beginner to talk about "fine" shavings versus "coarse" shavings, because when does fine become coarse and how do I even recognise "fine"? But (in my workshop at least) a fine shaving is about a thou, a normal shaving is about 2-3 thou, a course shaving is 4-6 thou, and anything above that is a very coarse shaving.

That knowledge can then be related to the machinery in the workshop, some of which can be set digitally to 0.1mm (so about 4 thou) and some of which can be set by eye to about a quarter of a mill (so about 10 thou).

That in turn can be carried across to the reality of hardwood joinery for fine furniture making. A bridle joint in a tight grained hardwood like Beech or Maple (IMO the most difficult of the common joints to cut by hand, more difficult than a dovetail joint for example) will go from too loose to too tight in the space of 0.1mm. You can just see a one thou glue line, you can definitely feel a one thou ridge between the stile and rail on a pannelled cabinet. When planing down a drawer side for a piston fit you go from "a little bit too snug" to "just right" in the space of one "normal" plane shaving. Or there's the example I previously gave, when shooting the ends of a typical Oak drawer side you'll be more accurate if your plane is at a one thou setting than if it's at a four thou setting.

As I said, the experienced worker has found all this out for themselves, but for a newcomer this quantification could spare them the slow progress and frustration of trial and error learning.

 

[custard]

I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings.

I'd agree with that.

But that's not the same thing as saying all calliper measurements of shavings are inherently inaccurate.

I once tried to get better results on ultra fine inlay and stringing by more accurately measuring the stringing. I thought a calliper might not give an accurate reading at these very small measurements because of the compressibility of wood. So I bought a cheap digital calliper that was designed for measuring paper thickness, it had a relatively large anvil to avoid compression errors. I then tried it on shaving thicknesses (like you I was having a slow work day!), interestingly the readings between this specialist calliper and my normal calliper were the same.

So my conclusion is that, provided you use your callipers sensitively and sensibly, you can get an accurate reading on hardwood shavings (I didn't compare on softwoods because I don't really use them).

 

[John15]

Excuse my ignorance but what does 1 thou equate to in metric? I can read through a shaving measuring 0.1mm on my very cheap callipers.

John

 

[Cheshirechappie]

To be precise, one thousandth of an inch (0.001") equals 0.0254mm. Most (common) metric calipers read to 0.02mm, so as near as dammit, about a thou. Some say they resolve to 0.01mm (about half a thou), but most are generally not highly accurate at that resolution.

Calipers, whether Vernier or digital, are generally regarded as 'guessing sticks'. Better quality ones will tend to be more accurate than cheaper ones, but it's best to regard them as comparators rather than as absolute precision instruments. Most, however, will be good enough for a woodworker to get a feel for the approximate measurements, tolerances and acceptable fits (as Custard described above) when joining bits of wood together. You can do it by trial and error, as most of the preceding generations had to, but given that most of us have been brought up in a 'measured' world, maybe the use of some measuring instruments might help some people.

 

[bugbear]

As I said, the experienced worker has found all this out for themselves, but for a newcomer this quantification could spare them the slow progress and frustration of trial and error learning.

Or were shown it by an instructor (teacher, or "master").

It's the modern emergence of written (or remote) instruction that make absolute measures valuable.

BugBear