How to store Handplanes?

[D_W]

Are you saying you don't know what he builds?

If a long plane is cutting fine why would you put it down? Why not take it all the way to the finish line? There's no law that says you have to go jack-jointer-smoother every single time you plane a board.

For God's sake don't tell me you've never just gone ahead and finished off a board with a jointer or a No. 6. Please. That's just insane, especially working our hardwoods the vast majority of which aren't really that difficult to plane. Cherry is a flippin' breeze to plane.

Of course I've finished wood off of a jointer (or for a while, off of a panel plane that I'd made), but exterior surfaces always with a smoother for the thin shavings. If I omit anything, it's the jack, not usually the smoother.

All of the woods I listed are nice to plane, that's why I use them. Hard maple isn't always great, but it's not awful like ash can be awful sometimes (and sometimes ash can be 100% agreeable).

 

[Trafalgar]

Not that my smoother doesn't perform just fine but I tend to call it a good day when the 08 has handled everything down to the finish line. Things seem to move along at a slightly better clip when this is the case.

 

[D_W]

Not that my smoother doesn't perform just fine but I tend to call it a good day when the 08 has handled everything down to the finish line. Things seem to move along at a slightly better clip when this is the case.

You're probably in better shape than me. Which isn't saying much.

I'll be interested in seeing how griggsy (different than this forum) and brian holcombe get along with the two planes I made them, which were explicitly for labor reduction on their part since both of them do a lot of hand work.

I'm not ever going to make planes in any quantity, but I'd love to make a market for someone who will. I don't *need* the effort reduction that comes with my planes, but it's awfully nice to have.

Charlie, I don't know if I've ever asked you, but do you have a power jointer and planer, or do you do most of your rough work by hand? I've only seen your marples jack in the happy face picture you put up.

 

[Trafalgar]

Use a long plane all day for a couple of days and you'll get it. It is not that fatiguing. ****, it all makes you tired. Hard to blame any one thing. Just moving around a shop all day does that.

The only electric tools I own are an old 1970s era Delta Homecraft gap-bed lathe and a Sears Craftsman grinder from about the same period. I have access to a longer bed Powermatic lathe that I use on occasion.

I do have a circular saw, power drill, and a few others in my carpentry kit. I never use that stuff in the furnituremaking though. I'm tempted to use the circular saw for rips but really haven't to this point. I think I ripped some sheet goods with it when I made a lumber rack. I use those tools for the occasional framing job that comes up.

When I'm removing a lot of material I use a Marples wooden jack, a razee-style. I do have a Stanley scrub but use it rarely it seems. Not sure why.

 

[David C]

Alan Peters did his apprenticeship at the Barnsley workshop, Froxfield, some time after the war. He started in January 1949.

It sounds as though Edward Barnsley was persuaded to start adopting machinery around 1956.

David

 

[D_W]

Use a long plane all day for a couple of days and you'll get it. It is not that fatiguing. ****, it all makes you tired. Hard to blame any one thing. Just moving around a shop all day does that.

The only electric tools I own are an old 1970s era Delta Homecraft gap-bed lathe and a Sears Craftsman grinder from about the same period. I have access to a longer bed Powermatic lathe that I use on occasion.

I do have a circular saw, power drill, and a few others in my carpentry kit. I never use that stuff in the furnituremaking though. I'm tempted to use the circular saw for rips but really haven't to this point. I think I ripped some sheet goods with it when I made a lumber rack. I use those tools for the occasional framing job that comes up.

When I'm removing a lot of material I use a Marples wooden jack, a razee-style. I do have a Stanley scrub but use it rarely it seems. Not sure why.

Thanks Charlie, I'm not sure I ever got the nuts and bolts of the operation from you before. It's helpful for context.

 

[David C]

I have never read so much hot air about the relative merits of different styles of chipbreakers.

If anyone can suggest an experiment which will demonstrate differences, I would be happy to reproduce it.

C/Bs are held against the blade by lever cap force, which is adjusted with the central screw. There is a component which is defined by the C/B shape, but I suspect that the lever cap screw setting is more important.

David Charlesworth

 

[Trafalgar]

Use a long plane all day for a couple of days and you'll get it. It is not that fatiguing. ****, it all makes you tired. Hard to blame any one thing. Just moving around a shop all day does that.

The only electric tools I own are an old 1970s era Delta Homecraft gap-bed lathe and a Sears Craftsman grinder from about the same period. I have access to a longer bed Powermatic lathe that I use on occasion.

I do have a circular saw, power drill, and a few others in my carpentry kit. I never use that stuff in the furnituremaking though. I'm tempted to use the circular saw for rips but really haven't to this point. I think I ripped some sheet goods with it when I made a lumber rack. I use those tools for the occasional framing job that comes up.

When I'm removing a lot of material I use a Marples wooden jack, a razee-style. I do have a Stanley scrub but use it rarely it seems. Not sure why.

Thanks Charlie, I'm not sure I ever got the nuts and bolts of the operation from you before. It's helpful for context.

I've owned all the relevant 'big' power equipment in the past. Lately, people have asked about me doing kitchens. I could very well be about to buy that stuff all over again.

 

[D_W]

I have never read so much hot air about the relative merits of different styles of chipbreakers.

If anyone can suggest an experiment which will demonstrate differences, I would be happy to reproduce it.

C/Bs are held against the blade by lever cap force, which is adjusted with the central screw. There is a component which is defined by the C/B shape, but I suspect that the lever cap screw setting is more important.

David Charlesworth

Certainly it's more important that the lever cap screw is the right tension. That can be a wider range with a cap iron that has more spring.

In the grand scheme of things, this is pretty low in comparison to things like bed angle, cap iron or no cap iron. The only reason it is brought up and discussed in such detail is the ridiculous notion that Lie Nielsen somehow improved the cap iron, which is one of the more absurd things I've heard.

As far as the rest of the details, i can't really have much of an informed conversation about much of this stuff except with folks who dimension wood by hand. The biggest difference in function between optimal and suboptimal with all of this stuff occurs at the try plane level in dimensioning. The idea of coming up with an experiment to show something is what gives us things like derek's comment about the increased wear bevel on the back of an iron on a double iron plane. Certainly the research pictures show increased wear on the back of an iron when a cap iron is used, but in actual use, the iron works in the cut longer, anyway, and the wear never comes into context.

I can have educated discussions on this stuff with charlie since he's working by hand, or with Brian Holcombe on another forum because he's working entirely by hand. I sent him planes because I expect they will improve his experience working wood by hand. If he doesn't agree with me, in time he won't be able to resist saying so. Anyone else not in the same boat just doesn't have the context to decide.

Talking about the full range of plane function with people who don't dimension by hand is like having discussions about large rip saws with people who don't cut more than dovetails and tenons with hand saws. They never develop a sense of physical economy to understand why things are made the way they are.

 

[Trafalgar]

I have never read so much hot air about the relative merits of different styles of chipbreakers.

If anyone can suggest an experiment which will demonstrate differences, I would be happy to reproduce it.

C/Bs are held against the blade by lever cap force, which is adjusted with the central screw. There is a component which is defined by the C/B shape, but I suspect that the lever cap screw setting is more important.

David Charlesworth

Actually the lever cap holds the blade/chipbreaker assembly to the frog as a unit. If the cap is designed correctly, the old Stanley and Records seemed to be, tightening the rather short chipbreaker screw puts the breaker into a degree of tension, the lever cap shouldn't be so tight as to disturb this relationship. I like the Record breakers with their profound 'hump' but can't say to a scientific certainty whether it makes any difference. I SUSPECT that this 'hump' makes the breaker effective at settings less close than those extrapolated by a study of the Kato & Kawai video, and hence the general effectiveness of these old warriors over the years at settings back from the tip of the iron.

At the very least this explanation makes me feel good!

With a reasonably tight mouth the humped breaker will really push a chip over against the leading edge of the mouth. That's a good thing, right?

Cheers,

Charles

 

[D_W]

I've owned all the relevant 'big' power equipment in the past. Lately, people have asked about me doing kitchens. I could very well be about to buy that stuff all over again.

That sounds familiar, but I'm charged only with building one kitchen. The amish guys tell me there's money in trim and money in kitchens and bathrooms.

 

[Trafalgar]

There is, but like any sort of contracting it's easy to get blistered if you aren't careful. My biggest investment would likely be computer software rather than tooling.

 

[D_W]

I have never read so much hot air about the relative merits of different styles of chipbreakers.

If anyone can suggest an experiment which will demonstrate differences, I would be happy to reproduce it.

C/Bs are held against the blade by lever cap force, which is adjusted with the central screw. There is a component which is defined by the C/B shape, but I suspect that the lever cap screw setting is more important.

David Charlesworth

Actually the lever cap holds the blade/chipbreaker assembly to the frog as a unit. If the cap is designed correctly, the old Stanley and Records seemed to be, tightening the rather short chipbreaker screw puts the breaker into a degree of tension, the lever cap shouldn't be so tight as to disturb this relationship. I like the Record breakers with their profound 'hump' but can't say to a scientific certainty whether it makes any difference. I SUSPECT that this 'hump' makes the breaker effective at settings less close than those extrapolated by a study of the Kato & Kawai video, and hence the general effectiveness of these old warriors over the years at settings back from the tip of the iron.

At the very least this explanation makes me feel good!

With a reasonably tight mouth the humped breaker will really push a chip over against the leading edge of the mouth. That's a good thing, right?

Cheers,

Charles

It is an accurate explanation, it's a thing that makes a preference in feel for an experienced user. As far as cap irons go and using them properly, there really aren't many. The explosion of videos of people using cap irons and talking about it on youtube makes me suspect, because they are all very recent, and many of the people claimed they learned to use the cap iron as they're demonstrating long ago.

Just a suspect as I would've loved to hear how Lie Nielsen determined that their cap iron is an improvement when they didn't know where it was that it should be located in relation to the end of an iron.

The newbies will think I'm being very harsh on the toolmakers, but this is not that - it's just fact. The very people who sell us the tools couldn't be counted on to tell us how to use them properly, and we were propositioned with suboptimal (to say in the least) things like toothed irons and high angle frogs.

Charlie, there's been enough congruence in our comments today that I'm sure that I'll step out under a rain cloud later!

 

[shed9]

The type of tool under discussion here has essentially five very basic constituent parts (six if you include the handles component) and yet some of you are falling over yourselves to suggest it’s Harry Potter magic and that the main vendors of today haven’t a clue in what they are doing.

The level of arrogance here is staggering.

 

[Trafalgar]

Alan Peters did his apprenticeship at the Barnsley workshop, Froxfield, some time after the war. He started in January 1949.

It sounds as though Edward Barnsley was persuaded to start adopting machinery around 1956.

David

Quite right. Peters was probably one of the last to do his apprenticeship, at Barnsley at least, with no powertools. There are some relevant quotes related to this in one of this books. I'll post these later, in another post.

 

[D_W]

The type of tool under discussion here has essentially five very basic constituent parts (six if you include the handles component) and yet some of you are falling over yourselves to suggest it’s Harry Potter magic and that the main vendors of today haven’t a clue in what they are doing.

The level of arrogance here is staggering.

I think you need to reread. What I've suggested at least, is that the assertion that the current plane improvements are improvements for beginners, at least in the mind of beginners. I think if there's any arrogance at all, it would be in the idea that you can just set up shop as a hobbyist, grow a little plane business over a relatively short period of time and outdo people who had a far better context for using planes.

Think about the idea of saying you have an improved chipbreaker and then finding out that you can't even use it as a chipbreaker was designed to be used.

What's in the new planes is higher quality castings and probably closer tolerances all around. Nothing otherwise has been designed that actually has improved on anything that stanley made. Stanley made planes to the level that they needed to be made to function, not for a group of white collar retirees taking a class. And they made irons that an individual could put in a box with a single stone and use and sharpen all day.

As far as the functions of the actual jack planes, try planes (fore/jointer), none of the new planes have anything on an early 1800s double iron plane except that they may be more seasonally stable (even that is mitigated if wood is chosen properly).

I'd love for someone to tell me what a modern plane does better than a stanley plane. Please don't mention things like setscrews and less backlash, no serious user finds any value in that stuff.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

David, as I see it, there is a conflict of types of planes and the designs necessary for each. You are derogatory of the "Lie-Nielsen Improved" chipbreaker for the Bailey style plane, but often intermix your reasoning with wooden planes. Therein lies a problem - because it is well possible that the chipbreakers for woodies have different additional effects.

Further, there is the assumption that Bailey did not mention the chipbreaker effect in his patent as this was already common knowledge and in common usage. That it was in common usage I am not disputing. That Bailey came up with his chipbreaker design as part of this process is something I will dispute. Note that this is not a comment on the chipbreaker effect, but on Bailey's design.

Why is the Stanley chipbreaker/cap iron shaped as it is, and is the “Improved” LN chipbreaker really an improvement?

http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _67398.htm

This patent of Bailey in 1867 was for the cap iron (as he referred to it). The patent specifies that the purpose of the cap iron is to connect the blade to the lever adjuster. It is relevant to note that the plane he was describing was a Transitional and not a full metal Stanley benchplane.

Whether or not it was already assumed that Bailey understood the “chipbreaker effect” – since this is not mentioned in the patent – it is only evident that the cap iron was designed for its mechanical properties.

One of the descriptions in this patent that appears to have been overlooked (or, I cannot recall any attention drawn to this point) is this: “As the lower surface of the part B may become worn away, from use of the plane, the opening of the lower part of the throat will- grow wider, and finally become so wide as to render it necessary to glue, or fix on the back 'or inclined face of that part of the throat which .is on the part B, a thin layer or plate of wood or other material of sufficient thickness to bring the plane-iron in its true relation with the front edge of the opening of the throat”.

What this indicates, in effect, is that Bailey considered that a closed up mouth was important for performance. The importance of a movable frog was to overcome the limitation of the mouth wearing. The significance of this statement is that he was NOT advocating the chipbreaker as a means of controlling tearout, but simply saw it as a mechanical connection to the adjuster.

Please note that I am not negating the use of the chipbreaker as a means of controlling tearout. I am a strong supporter that it works this way. This post is about chipbreaker design, per se. Specifically, “why” did Bailey come up with his design. Unless one can say this, how can one fully understand its current use.

There is a list of Bailey patents here, but none of them are about the shape of the cap iron, per se: http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/wood ... atents.htm

Anyone with a modicum of engineering understanding will twig why the cap iron/chipbreaker is designed the way it is. The answer is simple because it is logical.

In a world where thin sheet steel is cheaper and profits are maximized when costs are kept down, the round front section is created to stiffen the thin gauge steel.

Any “spring” is a by-product of this. I do not believe that Bailey deliberately designed in the spring. However it was/is a happy coincidence since it enables the chipbreaker to remain under tension, which prevents it loosening and moving.

So what is it that LN/LV/new Stanley/et al have changed with the chipbreaker? Basically, all they have done is provide the solid section to the leading edge – a solid steel ledge – that Bailey would have done had he been less economical in his outlook ..

Underside of LN and LV chipbreaker ..

Flex/spring (under full tension) …

The question now is, how does this compare in performance to Bailey design in a metal Bailey-style plane?

Regards from Perth

Derek

p.s. I wrote this article some time back. I plan to re-write it with update on design factors and the experiences gained since that time. Still, there are some points that remain relevant (for metal Bailey planes): http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... eaker.html

 

[D_W]

The spring is most certainly intentional. mild steel wouldn't have been that expensive back then that a plane couldn't have been made from it if it was deemed necessary.

I do believe that the new design cap irons aren't as good as the original design. There shouldn't be a fascination with that, though, it's a so-be-it thing. Perhaps you can check with the technical staff with lee valley, but I don't believe that they consider the cap iron to be of practical benefit for breaking chips. It's awfully difficult to get information out of them.

Lie Nielsen, I don't know. I do know they weren't aware of the use of the cap iron when they made their improved irons or they'd have never located the slot where it is.

Also, it appears that the use of the cap iron to mitigate tearout was common knowledge at the time that bailey designed his cap iron. It's also true that the same curvature that exists on his cap, also exists on the old wooden caps. Cap irons eliminated single iron planes from all but the budget lines of makers, and bailey slotted his cap iron for the adjuster post so that they easily went to the end of the iron and beyond. Couple that also with the fact that the profile, the curvature, is almost ideal for actual work breaking chips. There wouldn't have been much reason to mention chip breaking in a patent, there's nothing about breaking chips that needed to be patented. If bailey wanted to market the novel idea of a fit with some spring in it and connectedness between the lever cap and a thin iron, then he did that just fine.

I'd really be curious what the "improvement" is in the lie nielsen and lee valley cap irons. Nobody has specified that. Perhaps there's some bit of stuff about them being heavier, but that itself would again point back toward the makers not knowing how to set a cap iron (which we know is true), because a properly set stanley plane will stop you in its tracks before it chatters (different than the skip that charlie mentioned, which is due to a cut that is not engaged immediately). For over a hundred years, anyone who introduced that type of plane and sold it to professional users could have easily put a slab-style cap iron in their planes, and if it was an improvement, it would've sold immediately. Nobody did until makers who literally did not know what the cap iron was for were designing improved versions.

There is also a fascination with thick irons that amateur users have or had, which also suggests that the same users don't know how to use a plane. A thick iron covers up a poorly fitted plane in some cases (not that the makers of premium planes would have them poorly fitted, so it's got to be a marketing issue), or a bad design as one that doesn't support the iron near the cutting edge. Again, the need for this "improvement" that's not an improvement didn't show up until the designs and users had no clue what the cap iron was for.

Again, I am not talking about spring as the ability of the cap iron to bend the iron, I don't have any idea how anyone got that idea. 250 years ago, irons were made with the back literally cut hollow and didn't even need to flex to bed only at the top and the bottom of a plane. It takes very little of that type of flex for that to happen. I am talking about the give that the hump on the stamped cap iron has, AFTER the iron is already bedded tight against a frog.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi David

It is relevant to separate what one believes from what one knows. One is speculation and the other is fact.

Often speculation contains much fact - just that the observations that lead to it have not been organised into a coherent framework. What I am saying it that I do not disregard your speculations, and am spending time trying to sift through them to determine what the important elements are. That is what you should be doing - explaining why the parts do what they do, otherwise you will continue to have detractors.

I believe that some of the mechanisms that we recognise in the way the chipbreaker works came about serendipitously. The spring you refer to in the Bailey chipbreaker is an example. The thickness of the steel is so different from chipbreakers in woodies, and the Bailey chipbreaker simply could not have any structural integrity without the front rounded section.

The spring I experience in woody chipbreakers, such as made by Mathieson, is similar to the amount of spring in the LN and LV. The Stanleys I have stand out as closer to cooked spaghetti by comparison.

None of this is to imply that the LN is "improved" because LN knew what they were doing. I believe, as you do, that their structural improvements were serendipitous. LN appear to have been the last to recognise that the chipbreaker can be used for tearout control. They have steadfastly supported high bed angles instead. Lee Valley were headed down this path at one time, when the Custom planes were first conceived, but changed direction (not easy to do when they were as far down the path as they were) and managed to offer everyone a choice (of high beds and chipbreaker control).

At the end of the day, for the chipbreaker to work, the blade must be stable and the leading edge of the chipbreaker must control directional change of the shaving at the ideal angle to create downward pressure.

The thick blades are a hang over from the days when blade stability and tight mouths were the go in controlling tearout. What the demonstrations (for example, Rob Cosman) did show was that the thicker blades do have a positive effect in this regard. You may believe that they are unnecessary and that other factors are more important, but facts are facts. It has been demonstrated.

What has also been demonstrated is that a thicker chipbreaker can and does support a thinner blade and improve stability. This may not be the function we now seek, but facts are facts (I know this very well since my first review actually was the "new improved LN chipbreaker" about 15 or so years ago. I had/have photographic evidence - the article is somewhere on the WWW - someone with the Badger Pond CD may well find it there).

So the question comes up "do we still benefit from the thick blades?". My answer is "they add something, and a lot of small things are accumulative". This is not the same as the question, "do we need thick blades?". The answer to that is obviously "no". On the other hand, life is about freedom of choice, and I like the thicker blades as they are easier to hone and the newer, flatter blades are easier set up with the chipbreakers.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[G S Haydon]

I think I've read that one before Derek, what improvement in surface finish did you get using the LN & LV variants over the Stanley?