Don't fret. It's shocking how readily people will check their common sense at the door when they want to believe something, or like the person delivering the message. There, I just summed up the marketing profession for you in one sentence.
Modern Plane Irons
- Thread starter Bluekingfisher
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Each blade sold with its own stone? And each pair must have its own formula of snake oil perhaps? Could be money in this - Honerite is already one of the most expensive fluids known to man* but that could be just the beginning!bugbear":1xzbbkyh said:
*slight exaggeration - it's only £60+ per litre as compared to about £5 for wd40 (very similar stuff) or £20+ for scotch whisky (does the job and tastes nicer) - there's a sucker born every minute!
Bluekingfisher
Established Member
Jacob":16giht7j said:
You are so lucky to be so well informed :wink:
Jacob":h6948ihr said:
I interpreted what he said differently. More thus:
The bloggerators' explanation of old irons was that they are inferior, short wearing and they must've been made by lunks who were stuck with substandard goods and who just had to make do.
The bloggerators' explanation (at least for a while) of oilstones was that they were inferior, slow cutting, often too narrow, and didn't finish an edge fine enough, especially on some steels.
Pair car boot tools with a $25 washita, a strop, and perhaps some kind of cheap stone as an edge chaser for paring chisels (like an inexpensive slab of jasper) and then all of the sudden it all makes sense (the whole old steel hardness thing), and we all get why they didn't ask for steel to be harder than it was - because cast steel certainly could've been 62 hardness without an issue.
Flip over to japanese tools and find a chisel that's 62 hardness and try and grind it with novaculite and it's a pain. You can finish it, but not do medium work. But get binsui through a japanese finisher (which doesn't need to be expensive, though it'll be more than the washita), and suddenly the hardness of the irons makes sense with the stones.
Where it falls apart is if you try to do the mating of every type and you want to have something from every rung of the ladder. Japanese tools are obviously cut well by alumina, but the result looks terrible. old tools are cut fine by alumina, but modern alumina stones are generally less convenient than washita.
If someone can pick just one rung, they can get away cheaply. I bought the whole ladder, but I like the novaculite and old steel rung the best, and notice that if someone asks me off the record for advice on something, they usually have much better restraint and they can buy one rung and get on with the work.
(there are things where old steel and old stones were better than anything made now, at least of common quality - most notably knives and straight razors. For razors, nothing is as good as the early 1900s razors made of very plain steel and sharpened with stones that came out of the ground and then where the razor is maintained by true linen strops and horse leather. None of those things are common now, so "Carbon steel" in most new razors is something similar to chrome vanadium, strops are mostly cowhide, there is no such thing as a treated genuine linen any longer and the finest razor stones from thuringia were clapped out in the 1920s).
Sticking to one rung of the ladder for anything (shaving, food prep, woodworking) is more than fine, it's only not enough when the ladder is more important than where it goes.
One inference that you can draw from that is that you could produce of table of steel types vs. stone types with crosses showing which worked with which. If it appeared that having three different kinds of steels meant that you needed three different kinds of stones, it would probably concentrate minds a bit and make people choose different steels which could all be sharpened on the same stones or restrict themselves to one or two steel types.bugbear":3qlpjg7n said:
woodbrains
Established Member
Hello,
But no one has ever said this as a rule, now have they. You are making a false argument and then ridiculing your own nonsense. The script is usually something like, ' holds an edge longer and can be sharpened with the usual methods.' Or, ' holds an edge up to 3 times longer, and does not take appreciably longer to hone'. If you read my observations, they say about how longer edges last in abrasive materials and how they may prove to be more difficult to sharpen. David Charlesworth says the same, so does everyone else's tests that I have read, some say certain steels cannot be sharpened on anything but ceramic or diamond hones, such as D2. Some say the edges are not always as truly sharp as carbon steel, but the edge holding advantage is often worth it. There is always a proviso made, I've not read anything that doesn't.
Alan Peters realised that standard plane irons were lacking and in his time, did not benefit from the better aftermarket offerings we are privilaged to now. Hence he had 4 irons for each plane, so he could just swap an iron out and continue working, rather than constantly sharpen.
Mike.
CStanford":xz9vf367 said:
But no one has ever said this as a rule, now have they. You are making a false argument and then ridiculing your own nonsense. The script is usually something like, ' holds an edge longer and can be sharpened with the usual methods.' Or, ' holds an edge up to 3 times longer, and does not take appreciably longer to hone'. If you read my observations, they say about how longer edges last in abrasive materials and how they may prove to be more difficult to sharpen. David Charlesworth says the same, so does everyone else's tests that I have read, some say certain steels cannot be sharpened on anything but ceramic or diamond hones, such as D2. Some say the edges are not always as truly sharp as carbon steel, but the edge holding advantage is often worth it. There is always a proviso made, I've not read anything that doesn't.
CStanford":xz9vf367 said:
Alan Peters realised that standard plane irons were lacking and in his time, did not benefit from the better aftermarket offerings we are privilaged to now. Hence he had 4 irons for each plane, so he could just swap an iron out and continue working, rather than constantly sharpen.
Mike.
That's a reasonable strategy in any age. It's not significant commentary on anything other than a workshop practice, for instance spending the first fifteen to thirty minutes of the day making sure the tools one expects to use that day are sharp. You're reading too much into it and I don't think Peters did this out of any disdain for Record plane irons. He talked about buying a Norris, even when he was established enough to afford one, but never did. He was afraid it would sit on a shelf. To me, that's the highest compliment he could have ever paid the tools he did actual work with.
I find it liberating to KNOW these tools can do the work, have done the work. For others, it seems to inexplicably stick in their collective craw and is something they need to explain away somehow. I'll never understand it, especially from a Brit.
I find it liberating to KNOW these tools can do the work, have done the work. For others, it seems to inexplicably stick in their collective craw and is something they need to explain away somehow. I'll never understand it, especially from a Brit.
There's nothing exceptional about D2. It wears a little bit longer than A2, but it has a chipping problem when first honed and wears more coarsely than carbon steel (and doesn't finish as nice). It sharpens fine on every waterstone I've ever used, and the only remaining tool I have of it (a ray iles pigsticker) sharpens fine on every stone I have.
I don't know what Alan Peters did to sharpen, but I think if it took more than 2 minutes, he would've benefited by 15 minutes in my shop. God knows that there is absolutely nothing else that he did that I do that he'd have learned anything from me. Unless he wanted to learn to build a double iron plane (I know better than that).
Abrasion and adhesion are the things that wear good quality irons. Chipout happens on not-so-good quality irons, and it should be excluded. Abrasion and adhesion aren't that far apart in terms of how an iron wears, apparently. Abrasion wears irons on stones, adhesion on wood if you go by the definition (adhesion being frictional wear that occurs when two things are rubbed together and particles are moved. Abrasive refers to a hard surface wearing a softer surface. With irons, this only happens if there are silica particles or hard minerals in wood.
If you want to make a steel that is easier to sharpen and wears longer in wood, it has to:
* be less resistant to abrasive wear
* more resistant to adhesive wear
* somehow maintain the characteristic that it won't chip at reasonable angles in woodworking use
If this was an easy thing to solve, it would be solved already. It's fairly often, probably, that a manufacturer of a new steel or someone applying a new steel (as in A2, D2, etc) that was manufactured for something else will try to come up with a scientific test, and the test may not be a great indicator of actual use. I suspect when veritas (not that they've told me this) or ...well, I don't guess lie nielsen gets this advanced ...let's stick with veritas. Veritas is very careful about being able to prove what they claim, I suspect that when they talk about the wear profile of V11, they are doing some kind of machine-related test (like a planing machine) with a control material so that they can test everything equally. That may or may not work out in reality. When V11 came out, on their chart it outlasted everything or almost everything on the chart. I have had two V11 irons. I found them in my shop planing cherry and beech (all i've used them on so far) to last about like good A2, and sharpen about like it, but they rust less than A2. I would guess nickel or chromium is the reason for that - thus the comment about it being like higher hardened 440C. Good a2 lasts well. Bad a2 chips (see brent beach's analysis of a shepherd tool iron - I too have a shepherd tool infill plane iron that does not last longer than carbon steel, but of course it is harder to sharpen than carbon steel, even if you're just talking about using waterstones). It's certainly possible that whatever is in V11, it does much better in a controlled test than A2, I certainly don't think Veritas has some dishonest attempt at anything - the steel they came up with is good, and it's barely more expensive than A2 (and perhaps more consistent).
What I'm getting at is that if this was an easy problem, there have been steel companies making blade steel for hundreds of years, and there are companies still doing it now (some more traditional like hitachi, etc, and some more like modern US powder metal makers). The probability that they're going to just walk into something that's unlike anyone has ever seen is very low.
For me, it's vintage carbon steel or white #2. Having been exposed to all of it, nothing else satisfies as well when inserted into the work process.
I don't know what Alan Peters did to sharpen, but I think if it took more than 2 minutes, he would've benefited by 15 minutes in my shop. God knows that there is absolutely nothing else that he did that I do that he'd have learned anything from me. Unless he wanted to learn to build a double iron plane (I know better than that).
Abrasion and adhesion are the things that wear good quality irons. Chipout happens on not-so-good quality irons, and it should be excluded. Abrasion and adhesion aren't that far apart in terms of how an iron wears, apparently. Abrasion wears irons on stones, adhesion on wood if you go by the definition (adhesion being frictional wear that occurs when two things are rubbed together and particles are moved. Abrasive refers to a hard surface wearing a softer surface. With irons, this only happens if there are silica particles or hard minerals in wood.
If you want to make a steel that is easier to sharpen and wears longer in wood, it has to:
* be less resistant to abrasive wear
* more resistant to adhesive wear
* somehow maintain the characteristic that it won't chip at reasonable angles in woodworking use
If this was an easy thing to solve, it would be solved already. It's fairly often, probably, that a manufacturer of a new steel or someone applying a new steel (as in A2, D2, etc) that was manufactured for something else will try to come up with a scientific test, and the test may not be a great indicator of actual use. I suspect when veritas (not that they've told me this) or ...well, I don't guess lie nielsen gets this advanced ...let's stick with veritas. Veritas is very careful about being able to prove what they claim, I suspect that when they talk about the wear profile of V11, they are doing some kind of machine-related test (like a planing machine) with a control material so that they can test everything equally. That may or may not work out in reality. When V11 came out, on their chart it outlasted everything or almost everything on the chart. I have had two V11 irons. I found them in my shop planing cherry and beech (all i've used them on so far) to last about like good A2, and sharpen about like it, but they rust less than A2. I would guess nickel or chromium is the reason for that - thus the comment about it being like higher hardened 440C. Good a2 lasts well. Bad a2 chips (see brent beach's analysis of a shepherd tool iron - I too have a shepherd tool infill plane iron that does not last longer than carbon steel, but of course it is harder to sharpen than carbon steel, even if you're just talking about using waterstones). It's certainly possible that whatever is in V11, it does much better in a controlled test than A2, I certainly don't think Veritas has some dishonest attempt at anything - the steel they came up with is good, and it's barely more expensive than A2 (and perhaps more consistent).
What I'm getting at is that if this was an easy problem, there have been steel companies making blade steel for hundreds of years, and there are companies still doing it now (some more traditional like hitachi, etc, and some more like modern US powder metal makers). The probability that they're going to just walk into something that's unlike anyone has ever seen is very low.
For me, it's vintage carbon steel or white #2. Having been exposed to all of it, nothing else satisfies as well when inserted into the work process.
You and I think a lot alike and that should scare the hell out of you.
CStanford":1puqyjss said:
I'm going to get a used straitjacket and see how it feels. Maybe sleep in it a day or two .... must be the direction I'm going!
If I develop a taste for danish modern and literary references, I'll know i'm done for.
Corneel
Established Member
I don't know if adhesive wear plays a role in woodcutting. Whenever you read a scientific paper about this stuff they invariably write that the wear from woodcutting is an abrasive process. Adhesive wear is the kind of wear happening for example in automotive bearing when the oil supply fails. Under high heat and pressure molecules are transmitted from the axle to the bearing or vice versa. It is very obvious when you see it. But I don't know how you could measure anything like that in woodcutting, so it gets a bit theoretical. But especially with the slow speeds and low temperatures in handtools it seems unlikely.
D_W":ycjfhgts said:
Start picking out padding for your cell....
profchris
Established Member
This is a fascinating discussion, but almost completely unhelpful to my own woodworking. Faith-based assertions ("this is the only steel to use, and this the only way to sharpen it") don't convince, and methods which work for others often don't work for me (though all are worth a try).
My empirical findings, which I'm entirely prepared to abandon as I learn more, are:
1. I can get an edge good enough to make musical instruments, which I guess is fairly high end goodness, from a range of steels. For planes I have an oldish Stanley, a Veritas, two Quangshengs and some venerable woodies. None seem vastly sharper, or keep their edge less well.
2. But I can't consistently get a good edge, no matter what sharpening method I use. Jigs and guides make me no more consistent than freehanding.
3. My (tentative) conclusion is that practice is more important than the steel or the technique. So I'm going for the easiest option, freehanding on a diamond plate. I'm getting more consistent.
But I will take away the idea that sharpening a chisel to less than 30 degrees might be helpful. I though the edge just fell off if you did that!
My empirical findings, which I'm entirely prepared to abandon as I learn more, are:
1. I can get an edge good enough to make musical instruments, which I guess is fairly high end goodness, from a range of steels. For planes I have an oldish Stanley, a Veritas, two Quangshengs and some venerable woodies. None seem vastly sharper, or keep their edge less well.
2. But I can't consistently get a good edge, no matter what sharpening method I use. Jigs and guides make me no more consistent than freehanding.
3. My (tentative) conclusion is that practice is more important than the steel or the technique. So I'm going for the easiest option, freehanding on a diamond plate. I'm getting more consistent.
But I will take away the idea that sharpening a chisel to less than 30 degrees might be helpful. I though the edge just fell off if you did that!
woodbrains
Established Member
Hello,
So this is my take on things. I can sharpen any tool I need to to a very high degree and reasonably quickly. Fast enough for how I wish to work. So, I have a normal (whatever that means) carbon steel iron, that after grinding, takes 5 or 6 strokes of an 8000G water stone to produce a wire edge and a couple more on the back to remove it. I'm having a bad day and some ornery wood is requiring me to rehone after 10 minutes of planing. Now I also have a special alloy iron that is purported to last 3 times longer. Using the logic that a tool that will resist abrasion 3 times longer, it will take 3 times longer to hone (in ideal circumstances, how else could this be) then I will have to hone this iron 15 to 18 strokes on the stone and can plane for 30 minutes. So tell me that the second scenario is not advantageous and is not a logical course to take.
Mike.
Edit, to put it another way, invest 5-6 seconds honing for 10 minutes planing versus 15-18 seconds honing for 30 minutes. I think tis is what our American friends call a no brainier. ( this does not account for removal and reinsertion of the iron into the plane, which will be 3 to 1 for the carbon steel iron if 30 minutes planing time was accomplished there)
So this is my take on things. I can sharpen any tool I need to to a very high degree and reasonably quickly. Fast enough for how I wish to work. So, I have a normal (whatever that means) carbon steel iron, that after grinding, takes 5 or 6 strokes of an 8000G water stone to produce a wire edge and a couple more on the back to remove it. I'm having a bad day and some ornery wood is requiring me to rehone after 10 minutes of planing. Now I also have a special alloy iron that is purported to last 3 times longer. Using the logic that a tool that will resist abrasion 3 times longer, it will take 3 times longer to hone (in ideal circumstances, how else could this be) then I will have to hone this iron 15 to 18 strokes on the stone and can plane for 30 minutes. So tell me that the second scenario is not advantageous and is not a logical course to take.
Mike.
Edit, to put it another way, invest 5-6 seconds honing for 10 minutes planing versus 15-18 seconds honing for 30 minutes. I think tis is what our American friends call a no brainier. ( this does not account for removal and reinsertion of the iron into the plane, which will be 3 to 1 for the carbon steel iron if 30 minutes planing time was accomplished there)
Bluekingfisher
Established Member
woodbrains":1srwrh6n said:
Of course you must also consider the time it takes to flatten the waterstone , which I assume needs attention each time you hone an iron. Again three times more with the vintage steel?
David
woodbrains
Established Member
Hello,
I like your thinking, but no! All things equal here, so no loss either way.
The big advantage is time planing versus time sharpening, so, on a good day when wood is behaving, 20 mins with the carbon steel will equate to an hour with the fancy alloy, but still for the same investment in honing times. The advantage increases, in fact, with easier woods.
Mike.
I like your thinking, but no! All things equal here, so no loss either way.
The big advantage is time planing versus time sharpening, so, on a good day when wood is behaving, 20 mins with the carbon steel will equate to an hour with the fancy alloy, but still for the same investment in honing times. The advantage increases, in fact, with easier woods.
Mike.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Would an artist be happy with pencils only sharpenable at dawn?D_W":3sri8dgf said:
Getting back to reality - you do it as you go. If you do it freehand you hardly f**g notice it's like blowing your nose.
Of course you do it as you go but you start the day clean. Nothing looks more ridiculous than to be surprised by a dull edge on the first board of the day.
woodbrains":3p077mgn said:
The argument that there's some sort of time savings is a myth.
If you sharpen your carbon steel iron the same way you'll sharpen a high speed steel iron, certainly that's longer than it would take to sharpen a carbon steel iron with a setup intended for carbon steel irons....and carving tools, and chisels, and marking knives.
I used to buy into that, but it doesn't materialize. I don't think there's anything that lasts three times as long in wear as a decent vintage stanley iron, though maybe if you're planing MDF you could get M2 or M4 to do it. In real conditions with a medium hardwood, it might be twice for HSS.
I'd like to see your sharpening start to finish on youtube with an iron that's already been honed twice since grinding. i'll compare it to mine and we'll see where we get.
I don't really know what I could plane for 10 minutes. I'd have smoothed four large panels from try planed wood or more in that amount of time, but I'd do it with a stanley 4 (should I say, have done it). The bulk of time with work is jack and try plane, but they take a shaving so coarse that they will wear you out before you need to resharpen, even the softest iron you can find.
I used to believe all of that stuff, but in reality I was just taking too many thin shavings to finish something. If you need to finish plane something 8 or 10 passes, then you should start with a very coarse smoother shaving, do it twice, and then take one finish shaving. If you have a highly alloyed iron that presents small chips, then the finish won't be suitable, it will have dozens of tiny lines in raking light, and now you have to scrape or sand.
Take a look at the wear patterns on brent beach's site to see what I'm talking about (for the berg and the tsunesaburo and others, you might have to click on the articles to see the pictures).
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/bladetest.html
Compare the wear bevel on the carbon steel irons to what it looks like on A2, d2, etc. What made me put those down is that I couldn't get an acceptable finish surface with them after not much time without going to 35 degrees, which limits clearance a little more and means a smaller wear bevel before planing again. And then I was rewarded (modern stones or older) with more passes on the stones, which means more flattening of the stones, and less ability of the stones to cut the steel well because they load (for an example of what i'm talking about, try sharpening a mujingfang iron on a shapton finish stone - it will load the surface unless you slurry the stone. Now try carbon steel, it doesn't load the surface).
The time advantages you're thinking you're getting only occur if it takes you a long time to sharpen. For me, from stopping cutting to starting again on any of my planes, it's less than two minutes. Whether I chase the burr with a strop or with jasper. But, look again at the wear pattern on the carbon steel - I can continue to finish a surface with a full wear bevel. With most of the diemaking steels, you cannot.
