Myths & Mysteries

[Benchwayze]

Gary,

That remark is so 'throwaway' it isn't worth discussing. :roll:

 

[David C]

I would suggest that the bench top gluing video is an almost perfect description of how not to do it

David Charlesworth

 

[GazPal]

Gary,

That remark is so 'throwaway' it isn't worth discussing. :roll:

Then why mention it? lol (Resisting the use of a derisive remark in counter balance to the one you chose)

The meaning behind my former comment encompasses the simple fact there are so many methods available and just as many schools of thought, but the one prescribed by Paul Sellers simply outlines one available to those with minimal tooling - working al fresco - and illustrates a method that's perfectly capable of producing a useable workbench top. Primary emphasis is placed upon "useable" and there's no mention of any intention to produce a high-end project or showcase piece.

 

[David C]

Because it is bad.

David

 

[CHJ]

Because it is bad.

David

Maybe not best practise, but if it ends up with a working platform adequate for the needs of a particular woodworker to get on and produce some output then what's the problem.

One of mine was knocked together with adequate support under the areas used for chopping out mortice's and supporting the type of wood I need to work some 20+ years ago using in the main 6" nails and 3" wood screws suitably capped or buried. Not pretty but it's functional.

I think if you look at the bits and pieces in my signature you may conclude that it does not inhibit what I do. And before there are any comments about turning not needing much careful wood preparation, try doing this without such.

 

[Benchwayze]

Gary,

That remark is so 'throwaway' it isn't worth discussing. :roll:

Then why mention it? lol (Resisting the use of a derisive remark in counter balance to the one you chose)

The meaning behind my former comment encompasses the simple fact there are so many methods available and just as many schools of thought, but the one prescribed by Paul Sellers simply outlines one available to those with minimal tooling - working al fresco - and illustrates a method that's perfectly capable of producing a useable workbench top. Primary emphasis is placed upon "useable" and there's no mention of any intention to produce a high-end project or showcase piece.

Gary,

Laugh if you wish. While you laugh at me, you're leaving someone else alone.

As to that shambolic video you seem to like, IMHO:

If you want a bench-top that doesn't require maximum effort to flatten after gluing; (He works by hand remember) it isn't sufficient to just squint across the dry-run it and say. 'Perfect!'

If you want a bench-top that isn't going to move sixteen ways from Sunday, as soon as you have a dry-spell, or a humid spell, it isn't sufficient to squeeze the pieces together by hand and say. 'That's great. The glue will hold it. It will never come apart.'

I thought that video was laughable, and despite all the experience he has, he looked like a weekend-woodworker who has no workshop, struggling on the lawn, to do a decent job, in the face of few resources. He says he did that to show it could be done. Maybe, but Gary, if you think that an acceptable; nay perfectly capable way to make a bench-top, then you aren't the craftsman I thought you were.

(hammer)

 

[Paul Chapman]

try doing this without such.

That's a stunning piece, Chas - very nice.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Jacob]

I had a look at the video. Impressed by Sellers ruthless practical common sense. A very effective approach if you only have 3x2", in fact a more stable result than using a single piece. Couldn't fault it, what are the objections?
I'd call that best practice - for a workbench not a piece of posh furniture. And I agree with him about the design; very practical, very easy to make. The best design for a beginner, but once you have it you'd keep it for 30 years or more and never need another one. Or do a two beam version like mine and just turn it at half time!

he looked like a weekend-woodworker who has no workshop, struggling on the lawn, to do a decent job, in the face of few resources

. Well spotted John. It is a demonstration of how to make a good bench for a weekend-woodworker who has no workshop, struggling on the lawn, to do a decent job, in the face of few resources and as such, excellent. He makes the point at the beginning - this is how you'd do it with wood from the sheds, with limited resources.

 

[Benchwayze]

I had a look at the video. Impressed by Sellers ruthless practical common sense. A very effective approach if you only have 3x2", in fact a more stable result than using a single piece. Couldn't fault it, what are the objections?
I'd call that best practice - for a workbench not a piece of posh furniture. And I agree with him about the design; very practical, very easy to make. The best design for a beginner, but once you have it you'd keep it for 30 years or more and never need another one. Or do a two beam version like mine and just turn it at half time!

he looked like a weekend-woodworker who has no workshop, struggling on the lawn, to do a decent job, in the face of few resources

. Well spotted John. It is a demonstration of how to make a good bench for a weekend-woodworker who has no workshop, struggling on the lawn, to do a decent job, in the face of few resources and as such, excellent. He makes the point at the beginning - this is how you'd do it with wood from the sheds, with limited resources.

I told you.... =;

 

[Corneel]

On this one I think I share the side of Sellers. Making your own bench is one of the first jobs an apprenticing woodworker has to do. And at that point, with minimal tools, equipement and skill available, this gets the job done. Not perfect, but workable for a first workbench. When the said woodworker gets sick of this thing after a while, he at least can make his posh, gleaming, hard maple, all bells and whistles bench, on a decent working surface.

People like you seem to forget how you tend to start out with just a skill saw, a workmate and a plastic handled Stanley #4.

And if you know it better, how would you build a decent bench under such circumstances?

 

[GazPal]

Gary,

That remark is so 'throwaway' it isn't worth discussing. :roll:

Then why mention it? lol (Resisting the use of a derisive remark in counter balance to the one you chose)

The meaning behind my former comment encompasses the simple fact there are so many methods available and just as many schools of thought, but the one prescribed by Paul Sellers simply outlines one available to those with minimal tooling - working al fresco - and illustrates a method that's perfectly capable of producing a useable workbench top. Primary emphasis is placed upon "useable" and there's no mention of any intention to produce a high-end project or showcase piece.

Gary,

Laugh if you wish. While you laugh at me, you're leaving someone else alone.

As to that shambolic video you seem to like, IMHO:

If you want a bench-top that doesn't require maximum effort to flatten after gluing; (He works by hand remember) it isn't sufficient to just squint across the dry-run it and say. 'Perfect!'

If you want a bench-top that isn't going to move sixteen ways from Sunday, as soon as you have a dry-spell, or a humid spell, it isn't sufficient to squeeze the pieces together by hand and say. 'That's great. The glue will hold it. It will never come apart.'

I thought that video was laughable, and despite all the experience he has, he looked like a weekend-woodworker who has no workshop, struggling on the lawn, to do a decent job, in the face of few resources. He says he did that to show it could be done. Maybe, but Gary, if you think that an acceptable; nay perfectly capable way to make a bench-top, then you aren't the craftsman I thought you were.

(hammer)

Quick on the draw and pulling no punches I see......well to each his own, but in spite of your apparent view, I've little to offer in the face of your derision. Barring the fact I've more than enough flying time as a craftsman within this trade and have far more respect for others than you apparently possess.

Perhaps his presentation was intended to illustrate the fact that weekend woodworkers can produce their benches with limited means. Ask him and you'll discover the truth, but let's leave the childishly demeaning critique/personal attacks out of it.

You forgot to mention RH, the need for materials to acclimatise to their surroundings, specifics concerning glue, grain orientation, etc.. Although you seem to prefer name calling. :lol: The list goes on and - in spite of the fact I agree with much of what you've said concerning his presentation - I chose not to opt for your blunt and quite abrasive approach. My view is the fact his offering will allow someone less experienced to build a useable bench that is PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF MEETING THEIR NEEDS.

 

[Noel]

As it happens I have expressed concerns to him. All I get is a reaffirmation that his way is the best. No consideration of the concerns. As others have remarked, his way is THE way. I won't waste any more time worrying over it and by default, no concerns over lawyers. I am entitled to an opinion, and to express it. I would never say HIS CV is baloney, but I've seen plenty of them in my time that were, to say the least, a bit fuzzy round the edges; and I dare say, so have you.
J

Got a link? Would be interesting read his reply.

 

[Kalimna]

My workbench was made on a workmate. Not much fun planing 6ft x 1 1/2ft beech on a workmate. But it gets the job done. The bench isn't pretty, it doesnt have M&T joints, and is held together by BnQ bolts. But it seems to work. Now that I have a *little* more experience, I would do things differently, and certainly I think I need to reflatten the top. However, there are few things in life (in whatever field) where only one way is certainly the only successful way. Whenever that is the case, you tend to find that everyone does it that way (for instance you wont find many people trying to flatten timber with a screwdriver) because they have to. When there is divided opinion, it generally means that it doesnt actually matter. What matters is that it works for the person doing it. There may be easier, cheaper, quicker, finer, more technical ways of doing something, but everyone has a different definition of 'better' or 'best'.

A bit of a ramble, so I apologise, but please people, remember we are adults, this is only an internet discussion forum, so maybe reel back the insults a little and grow up.

Cheers,
Adam

 

[woodbrains]

Jacob,

You still haven't answered the question! What sort of magic does the cap iron bestow to prevent tear out? Explain it, go on. Because I'll tell you this, when the answer is inevitably, chatter can cause tearout and reducing chatter reduces tearout, you just get insulting to avoid the inevitable. If you were worth the effort, I would explain why chatter is a physical property inherent in everything, and denying its existance is like denying the earth goes around the sun. It is just foolish and banging on about it will never make it true.

Mike.

Mike,

I'm afraid you are wrong about chatter causing tearout. And I can proof that in two directions.

1. Unlike Jacob I have had my fair share of chatter. Especially on the start of a cut. Now I know it is mostly a technique thing and can easily be avoided without droppin money on the problem. But a thicker blade or thicker capiron does indeed help against chatter when you are yet not proficient enough. But having seen all that chatter, I've never seen it accompanied by tearout! And when I see tearout, I don't see the typical chatter lines. Watch those pictures on Paul Sllers blog. The first one is chatter without tearout. The last one is tearout without chatter.

2. You can do a little experiment yourself. The working limit of the capiron against tearout is rather small. At 0.5 mm you won't see much improvement. At 0.2 mm you suddenly can plane everything without tearout. The change is rather dramatic and has to be seen to believe it. Now, at 0.5mm the plane iron is still very well supported by the capiron, but it seemingly doesn't help agaainst tearout.

The effect of the capiron against tearout is not in limiting chatter. It is about the caprion pushing the woodshaving back into the surface so it can be cut instead of torn apart.
Tear out happens when the wedging force of the blade is higher then the natural bond between the woodfibers and can only be mittigated when somehow the wedging force is lessened (steeper pitch, thin shaving) or when the wood is better supported (very very tight mouth, close set capiron).

Sorry Corneel, but it can and does.

It is not the only source of the problem, obviously adverse grain is the major perp. Chatter does magnify the problem though. Think about it, we are not talking about a cap iron improving tear out, over having none fitted. We are replacing one capiron for another and seeing reduced tear out. Logically, there must be something extra from the replacement cap iron, other than just the chip breaking function.

Chatter is caused from the cutting tip vibrating. The Clifton cap iron is more massive and hence absorbs more of the energy before it can truly develop into the chatter we can see. It also does not bend the blade like stock cap irons, but keeps it flat which gives a firmer bed to the blade/cap assy and then even more of the vibrational energy is dissapated into the frog and the mass of the plane in general. If the blade is less well damped, then tackling adverse grain sets up all kinds of vibrations at the cutting tip and the grain is torn more severely.

Incidentally, the cap iron effect is not 'pushing the woodshaving back into the surface' as you say, but is 'breaking the back' of the split chip before that split can telegraph deeper into the surface of the wood. Hopefully, the split can be terminated within the shavings thickness and therefore, show no roughness behind the cut.

Mike.

 

[AndyT]

Sorry if I missed it but nobody seems to have posted any pictures of the work that Paul Sellers has in his online portfolio. I do think that if any of these turned up in our Projects section there would be plenty of appreciative praise for his craftsmanship:

 

[Corneel]

Ah, this is better! Discussion with arguments instead of snide remarks!

 

[custard]

Sorry if I missed it but nobody seems to have posted any pictures of the work that Paul Sellers has in his online portfolio. I do think that if any of these turned up in our Projects section there would be plenty of appreciative praise for his craftsmanship:

+1

If he can produce work like that then I don't really care if he strops or not, uses an LN or a Record...or even if his hair's dyed or natural!

 

[Corneel]

Mike,

Thanks for your comments about chatter and tearout. Of course it's nearly impossible to tell what exactly happens at the edge, but lets's try to do some deductions.

First my comment about chatter without tearout. I really have seen that a lot. So when chatter would promote tearout, at least it won't be a standalone cause of tearout. You would need a tricky spot of grain reversal. Well, we know in that case a thicker capiron isn't going to cure the plane. It will tearout nonetheless. It's very easy to get tearout with a solid plane with a 45 degree bevel, while it is difficult to get tearout with a cheap Stanley with the capiron in the proper place, close to the edge. So my conclusion from this, if chatter would be a cause of tearout, it would be minimal.

I was a bit quick to say that I've never seen tearout without chatter marks. You do usually see a rippled surface in the direction of the cut. But I think that is a consequence of the tearout. Because the edge is being pushed down into the wood and springs back up. You could call that chatter, I'd say that's just normal tearout behaviour.

Would a thicker capiron help to make the plane more tearout proof? You would have to do an experiment. The same plane, same iron just sharpened, same depth of cut, same piece of wood with grain reversal. Then just change out the capiron. Will that help? I haven't done that experiment, but I think the other capiron won't really help. The tearout is being caused by the wood, not the capiron.

I have made a video last week to show the effects of the capiron. The plane is a woodie. Very thick iron and very thick capiron. Chatter is no problem with this setup. Still the wood tears out horribly ( no wonder when planing against the grain) and is instantly cured when moving the capiron close to the edge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Nq1sbOhMM&feature=plcp

What you see is a plenty thick shaving, very straight and very strong, but no tear out. I have problems with believing the old theory of the capiron breaking the chip. We know from the work from prof. Kato that a small microbevel, about 80 degrees steep on the front of the capiron really improved its effectiveness of the capiron. With such a bevel the shaving is running into a wall. Kato meassured the force on the capiron and could really see an considerable increase when the capiron did its work. Now, it's not really possible for me to make a hard conclusion about what happens exactly, but my theory kind of nicely explains what could happen.

Any way, just learning to use the capiron is a lot cheaper then buying a Clifton one and more effective against tearout.

 

[Jacob]

Tear out and chatter have always been separate issues for me. Quite unrelated. Except perhaps with knots - chatter on the with-the-grain side where the knot wood is particularly hard, and tear-out on the against-the-grain side, for obvious reasons.

But if anyone thinks one causes the other how would you know which was cause and which the effect?

 

[Corneel]

You can prove that tearout can appear without chatter. See my chatter free wooden plane causing massive tearout.
The other way is a bit harder to prove. But we do see chatter sometimes. And when I see these typical chatterlines, it's usually without accompanying tearout. Look at that first picture in Sellers blog.
But it could be of course that tearout is worsened when chatter is an issue with a plane.