Myths & Mysteries

[Corneel]

Today in The Netherlands, almost all wooden floors are finished with oil. Either pure oil or an oil with some hard wax (carnuba I guess). Of course that needs some maintenance. Our floor is protected with a regular application of a special soap. ( I think that comes from a Scandinavian tradition).

Floors being one of the most heavily used wooden items in a house, I think you are too conservative about an oil finish.

 

[woodbrains]

But what about when the finish itself depends on sanding?

If the finish needs any sanding then you can only really apply that finish over a previously sanded surface, otherwise when you sand the finish you'll cut through on the microscopic ridges that planing or scraping always leave.

I think it depends on the finish and how the plane is prepared. If the final smoothing plane strokes are made with a slightly cambered blade (and I mean slight) there should be no ridges caused by the corners of the plane, just lots of very slight hollows which overlap. Theas will have peaks and troughs, so will not be dead flat in engineering terms, but flat in 'human' terms; they still have traced of the hand skills involved. However, since we can sharpen out planes VERY sharp and take 1 thou shavings, the peaks and troughs will be very small indeed, possibly less than a thou--due to overlapped plane strokes. The film finish of polyurethane applied with a brush is much thicker than 1 thou, so I don't see and have never had a problem with cutting through the finish. I don't use a block for cutting back in this instance, just v fine paper and light pressure with my hand. Why would you want to use a block, the flatness comes from whatever tool is used on the bare wood, after that we don't want to try to improve the flatness, just smooth the finish. Something like shellac only needs steel wool to cut it back and in any case, subsequent coats will burn into the preceeding ones, so cut through, if accidentally happens, will just blend away. We use scrapers to remove tearout all the time and doesn't that cause slight depressions?

I do not see the point in getting a polish ready surface straight from the plane and then scuffing it up with sandpaper! I'm not saying that I always acheive this, or always even aim for it, I am not a sandpaper Nazi, I tend to do what works. However, if I know my planes are capable of the finish I want, it gives me a choice, not an enforced reliance on sandpaper, because my tools are not sharp enough or my skills are lacking. And one other thing I have to disagree with, how can sanding be quicker than a plane? How long would it take to remove 3 thou with 400 grit sandpaper. The time it takes for 2 strokes of a plane--I think not.

Mike.

 

[No skills]

Interesting to know, quite the opposite to some products sold here for floor finish "diamond hard" polyurethane etc.

I had a quick go today cutting a mortice with a beveled edge chisel (not that I own any other ), not strictly Sellers style as I couldnt remember much of the video but it worked and was reasonably quick (for me, who still has enough fingers to count the number of mortices I have ever cut). I do think that the chisel would benifit from a steeper bevel than a normal BE chisel to try and preserve the cutting edge, I'm not sure I'd like to do this on a deep mortice in a hard wood tho - I'm fairly ham fisted and I think I'd like a chisel with a bit more meat in it.

FWIW

 

[Jacob]

...
I do not see the point in getting a polish ready surface straight from the plane and then scuffing it up with sandpaper!

Obviously. Who would! :roll:

I'm not saying that I always acheive this,

Me neither, so we resort to sanding/scraping

...... how can sanding be quicker than a plane?

When planing is difficult - tear out being the most common problem dealt with by sanding

How long would it take to remove 3 thou with 400 grit sandpaper. The time it takes for 2 strokes of a plane--I think not.

Mike.

If you are getting tear out and having to fiddle with planes, trying different ones, honing, setting etc it may well be quicker to sand and or scrape. This is why people sand/scrape - it's not because they are ignorant or stupid.

 

[Jacob]

...... Contrary to all myths, oiled and waxed furniture surfaces are the most sensitive to damage or abuse, and need very-very good preparatory work. To put oil or wax to a "plane fresh" surface of a non-decorative furniture item (eg. a dining table, chair, children's toys etc.), that is silly thing......

I've been talking to greenwood pole lathe turners. The say the opposite, about oil at least: A bowl, plate, spoon etc needs to be finished from the gouge/knife etc and most definitely not sanded, if it is going to be used as a normal utensil. The cut surface stays in better condition for longer, the sanded surface tends to go dull as the grain lifts and the embedded dust washes out. It certainly seems to be true in our house - carefully finished and sanded bowls don't survive too well compared to "unfinished" cut surfaces.

 

[custard]

But what about when the finish itself depends on sanding?

If the finish needs any sanding then you can only really apply that finish over a previously sanded surface, otherwise when you sand the finish you'll cut through on the microscopic ridges that planing or scraping always leave.

I think it depends on the finish and how the plane is prepared. If the final smoothing plane strokes are made with a slightly cambered blade (and I mean slight) there should be no ridges caused by the corners of the plane, just lots of very slight hollows which overlap.

Mike, but where one hollow meets another there'll be a ridge. Apply sanding sealer or a shellac finish to this and then, when you sand, which you'll have to, you'll cut through that ridge and expose bare wood.

As a previous poster put it, there's a lot of Krenovian idealism out there but in the real world it's pretty hard to avoid sanding at some stage.

One great example is cherry, often touted as the perfect timber for an oiled finish on a hand planed surface. I once made an eight seater dining table like this. Within a few years it has started to look blotchy. A more experienced and wiser woodworker told me it was inevitable, cherry is notoriously patchy in terms of surface absorbancy, so it absolutely needs a coat of shellac before oiling, and if that's true then it absolutely needs sanding too.

 

[Corneel]

...
I do not see the point in getting a polish ready surface straight from the plane and then scuffing it up with sandpaper!

Obviously. Who would! :roll:

I'm not saying that I always acheive this,

Me neither, so we resort to sanding/scraping

...... how can sanding be quicker than a plane?

When planing is difficult - tear out being the most common problem dealt with by sanding

How long would it take to remove 3 thou with 400 grit sandpaper. The time it takes for 2 strokes of a plane--I think not.

Mike.

If you are getting tear out and having to fiddle with planes, trying different ones, honing, setting etc it may well be quicker to sand and or scrape. This is why people sand/scrape - it's not because they are ignorant or stupid.

That brings us back to skills. It's not fumbling when you have the proper skills. Not saying that you lack any skills Jacob! But when you want to improve it makes sence to practice what you are not so comfortable with. Repeating what you can has a marginal impact on your skills.

 

[woodbrains]

But what about when the finish itself depends on sanding?

If the finish needs any sanding then you can only really apply that finish over a previously sanded surface, otherwise when you sand the finish you'll cut through on the microscopic ridges that planing or scraping always leave.

I think it depends on the finish and how the plane is prepared. If the final smoothing plane strokes are made with a slightly cambered blade (and I mean slight) there should be no ridges caused by the corners of the plane, just lots of very slight hollows which overlap.

Mike, but where one hollow meets another there'll be a ridge. Apply sanding sealer or a shellac finish to this and then, when you sand, which you'll have to, you'll cut through that ridge and expose bare wood.

As a previous poster put it, there's a lot of Krenovian idealism out there but in the real world it's pretty hard to avoid sanding at some stage.

One great example is cherry, often touted as the perfect timber for an oiled finish on a hand planed surface. I once made an eight seater dining table like this. Within a few years it has started to look blotchy. A more experienced and wiser woodworker told me it was inevitable, cherry is notoriously patchy in terms of surface absorbancy, so it absolutely needs a coat of shellac before oiling, and if that's true then it absolutely needs sanding too.

Hi,

Where one hollow meets the other there will be a ridge, indeed. This is what we mean by leaving evidence of handwork. But like I said, if we take 1 thou shavings with a very sharp plane, and overlap the strokes, the difference beween the high and low points will be 1 thou or less. This is less than the film thickness of most reactive finishes. You will only cut through with heavy handedness. If the dead flat surface is what you require, then by all means sand away all evidence of the craftsman and end up with, what some regard, as a sterile, lifeless surface, Like micro-thin veneer on mdf. Don't get me wrong, there is a time and a place for this. Furniture styles and wood species can dictate. But make an Arts and Crafts table from oak and see how much it suffers from being too flat.

Yes, cherry can suffer from blotchyness and a shellac sealer can even absobancy problems out. I don't see why a wash coat of shellac mandates sandpaper though. Steel wool just to de-nib would work. If you want to sand, then do, but it is not compulsary.

Regarding Krenovian idealism; he never denied using sandpaper and even stated that some woods do not want to be planed. It is easy to repeat misquoted writings and make out that he was aiming for unreasonable goals. I think aiming for these is a good thing even if they are seldom if ever acheived. Aiming for just good enough and falling short is a terrible thing.

Incidentally, blotchy cherry is something that happens as soon as the finish is applied. Something that happens years later is mostly not likely to be due to uneven absorbancy. American cherry is very photochromic however, and grain run out can often become more pronounced as the light changes the colour of the surface; the grain tending towards endgrain can darken more strongly than grain on the flat. Oils are light reactive, too and would make the situation more complex. I oiled cherry once and did not like the result, though not for the same reasons. A shellac finish looks nicer, IMO.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

..... But when you want to improve it makes sence to practice what you are not so comfortable with. Repeating what you can has a marginal impact on your skills.

Yes and no. Practice is good, repetition is good, and often (not always) thought needs to go into it. No different from any other human skill; making fairy cakes, playing the piano, you name it.

 

[GazPal]

That brings us back to skills. It's not fumbling when you have the proper skills. Not saying that you lack any skills Jacob! But when you want to improve it makes sence to practice what you are not so comfortable with. Repeating what you can has a marginal impact on your skills.

This is precisely why I place a great deal of emphasis upon practise and skill aquisition through repetition of each process.

 

[Corneel]

Yes and no. Practice is good, repetition is good, and often (not always) thought needs to go into it. No different from any other human skill; making fairy cakes, playing the piano, you name it.

What I mean:

Planing is a multi faceted activity. There are all kinds of subactivities. Like flattening a board, planing an edge square, dealing with difficult grain, etc. Each and every one of them needs practice and a lot of repetitions to become good at it. It's when we avoid doing one aspect, we get hindered at becoming a fully developed planer.

For example I kind of suck at planing a square edge. So I made a long shooting board and when I need to glue up a panel I use that instead practicing my freehand edge planing technique. Result: I'll never become a proficient edge planer.

From your answers in this thread, I understand that you kind of suck at planing without creating tearout in difficult grain. So instead of practicing that activity, you just grab the ROS. Result, you'll never become a proficient rowy grain planer.
Planing for hours with the grain in easy woods won't help you much in becoming proficient at difficult wood with grain reversals all over the place.

 

[Jacob]

......
From your answers in this thread, I understand that you kind of suck at planing without creating tearout in difficult grain.

No more so than anybody else as far as I know. I don't have a prob with square edges either.

So instead of practicing that activity, you just grab the ROS. Result, you'll never become a proficient rowy grain planer.
Planing for hours with the grain in easy woods won't help you much in becoming proficient at difficult wood with grain reversals all over the place.

Thanks for the advice but I have actually put in many hours on this and become much more proficient as a result. This was on some large sycamore table tops and some sapele small tops, at the start. Other stuff since. Have also experimented with different planes and configurations and so on. I only grab the ROS when I just have to finish a job which isn't giving in to hand techniques.
What I intend to do next is to hand plane (following on from machine plane) as far as possible but then to put more effort into scraping and getting scrapers nice n sharp. I've been woodworking for a long time, hand and machine, but only in the last few years been looking much harder at hand processes, so it's a developmental thing still.
First big step forwards was learning how to sharpen - convex bevel freehand etc. Very liberating once you have fast and easy sharpening sorted!

 

[Corneel]

I didn't want to offend you.

Me, I am going to practice on planing square and straight edges. I really want to get that skill down.

 

[custard]

if we take 1 thou shavings with a very sharp plane, and overlap the strokes, the difference beween the high and low points will be 1 thou or less. This is less than the film thickness of most reactive finishes.
Mike.

Two points,

1. The "ridge" (ie the peak between overlapping planing furrow that's at risk of having the finish removed with subsequent sanding) is governed more by the camber of the plane iron than the thickness of the shaving.

2. Where did you get the information on finish film thickness?

 

[Jacob]

I didn't want to offend you.

Me, I am going to practice on planing square and straight edges. I really want to get that skill down.

Simple. Just plane off the high points. The middle if there's a bump.The ends (or one end) if there's a dip. The high edge if it's not square. High corner to high corner if there's a twist. You just have to look closely at what you are doing.
Can help if the blade is cambered. Tilt mechanism useful - BU planes are weak in that department.

 

[Corneel]

Yup. And now combine all of them in one motion!
Practice, I guess. I am between two project now, so I have time for practice.

 

[Jacob]

Yup. And now combine all of them in one motion!.....

Impossible. I'd take them in sequence if I were you. One step at a time. Though if it's really rough you could just give it a blast to get it started.

 

[Corneel]

Ok, that's a good tip in fact.
Another problem I have: Loosing the straightness when squaring or the other way around.

 

[dunbarhamlin]

Decadent and inefficient, I know, but I get around that by using a cambered try plane and an uncambered jointer as separate operations. I do use stepped or weighted cuts with the jointer if a smidge out of square when jointing.

 

[János]

Hello,

Sanding is capable to cut much more carefully than a hand plane. You could sand down very thin layers, but in comparison, a hand plane is unable to cut such very thin shavings, in the range of 0,05 mm and below, simply because that is the technical limit of this technology. (I have no appetite for a quarrel about hand planes' merits... I have had my fair share of knowledge about the theory of wood cutting and machining...)
There is a simple test, anybody could make: hand plane a piece of wooden board. The species is irrelevant, but on softer woods the results would be more pronounced. Cut the board in half. Put one piece aside. Sand the other with P180 sandpaper carefully, but thoroughly. After sanding, wipe it with a cloth, dampened with hot water, then let it dry. (This would take a few hours or a day depending on weather). Then sand it with P240 sandpaper. After sanding, wipe it with a cloth, dampened with hot water, then let it dry. Then sand it with P320 sandpaper carefully, and thoroughly. Dampen it with hot water, then let it dry. Sand it with P400 sandpaper.
Apply a coat of beeswax or walnut oil to both boards and let them dry. Now put a wet glass of water (hot or cold, hot would be more effective) on the boards for a few minutes. Then remove the glasses, let the boards dry, and examine the surfaces.

Have a nice day,

János