no 5 1/2 plane clogging really easily

[David C]

It seems you can't distinguish between a comma and a full stop.

A significant chunk of that sentence is missing.

Glasses needed?

David

 

[Jacob]

It seems you can't distinguish between a comma and a full stop.

A significant chunk of that sentence is missing.

Glasses needed?

David

Dave
I was only quoting part of the sentence. Understand? That's how quotations are used - you aren't compelled to quote the whole text. Imagine if you were quoting from Shakespeare - you'd have to write out the whole play every time!
Whereas "misquoting" is to change it - like which/what you did! Glasses needed? :lol: :lol: :lol:

In any case if I'd quoted the full sentence it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to the sense of what I was saying. I don't know what you are banging on about Dave and I think you should give it a rest.

PS I guess he means "selective quoting" where the sense is radically changed by omitting parts of the original, as with reviews where "Amazing rubbish" becomes "Amazing....", but I'm not guilty there either. :lol:

PPS and to settle it once and for all here is an expanded version I could have written without snipped quotations

David C's complete sentence:

Moving the frog back might help, but will not address the fundamental cause of the problem, which is most likely to be an incorrectly shaped chipbreaker.

My comment: But the frog position could be the fundamental cause......etc

Surely that's enough about frog positions for the time being!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

](*,) It doesn't matter a jot how these threads start, we can always guarantee how they end. :roll:

 

[Vann]

Wot he said :!:

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Cheers, Vann.

 

[bugbear]

he means "selective quoting" where the sense is radically changed by omitting parts of the original, as with reviews where "Amazing rubbish" becomes "Amazing...."

By George, I think he's got it,

BugBear

 

[morfa]

](*,) It doesn't matter a jot how these threads start, we can always guarantee how they end. :roll:

Phil,

Tell me about it. I just wanted a bit of help about sorting out my plane! However it's better now and in amongst the 'discussion' is some good info, incase I get stuck again.

Morfa

 

[Jacob]

he means "selective quoting" where the sense is radically changed by omitting parts of the original, as with reviews where "Amazing rubbish" becomes "Amazing...."

By George, I think he's got it,

BugBear

Yes I have , but you have not.
The quote was snipped (common practice and uncontroversial) but not selectively so that it altered the meaning.
NB you have done exactly the same yourself above i.e. snipped my sentence but without changing the meaning (of the remainder). That's OK by me. The usual thing is to put stops or something ....... to indicate missing bits, but it's not compulsory.

Isn't it time to give this a rest? It's going nowhere and boring everybody to death including me. And the only misquotation so far in this whole thread, has been Dave's own! :lol:

PS and I'm still waiting for Mick to come up with examples!!!

 

[rafezetter]

Here is a picture I found on my harddrive with some meassurements from my UK made Stanley #4 with Ray Iles blade. The bevel is 5.2mm long. The sole at that point is 2,5 mm thick. X = 5.2 sin 20 = 1.8 mm. With the thinner original Stanley blades the sole support is even more (and even more neccessary).

[/URL]

That's more like it!
With your set up Pete you have the blade retracted quite some way.

And with a thin blade with a 30º bevel you get even more support, which explains why a thin blade can be so effective if set up in this way.

Is this essential - to have the sole of the plane at the mouth supporting the back of the blade? I'll have to do some filing I think to make it do that because at the moment the sole angle at the rear of the mouth is more oblique so with the frog set exactly to the mouth, the blade completely clear this, and I think my block planes have the reverse - just barely touching at the mouth edge. And should it be the entire section (matched inline perfectly with the frog as per picture) or can you get away with just the bottom of the mouth touching (file the mouth section more acutely) ?

My lever iron at the front by the mouth also juts out over the cap iron - by about 2 mm or so - do I have to back cut that to reduce the possibililty of things getting wedged under that leading edge (I'd already fettled the cap iron as recommended)... It'll take some grinding to do...


but then, if I move the frog forward to close the mouth tighter the blade isn't touching the sole mouth section anyway....

*scratches head*


oh and is it vital the frog exactly matches the blade too, no gaps?

 

[Jacob]

Just do your best and don't worry about it!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Your lever cap shouldn't be anywhere near the edge of the cap iron, let alone be overhanging. I've just looked at three different makes of plane, and they are all between 5mm and 8mm back. I wonder why yours is longer?

 

[Corneel]

It seems like you have attracted a bit of a problem child. But before you do any major surgery I would try the plane first and see how it works.

My lever caps all end somewhere on the hump of the chipbreaker.

All the soles of my planes are pretty accurately manufactured to 45 degrees at the back of the mouth. Only a Stanley Handyman from the 1990's vintage has a rectangular cut in that spot. I never got that one right, but it does pretty good work as a scrubplane.

Because the chipbreaker bends the blade, they never sit airtight on the frog. So that's no problem.

 

[rafezetter]

Well to be honest Corneel, I don't really have any plane of reference (*groan*). This is my first No.4 I've used (first plane of this type, after a block plane, full stop) it's an Acorn, seems to be ok on the drawer sides for some fit fine tuning I did on a reno project, no tearout long as I went with the grain on pine, and fine enough shreds(??) as I wasn't using it as a smoother, just removal compared to a sander. I've fettled it a bit; back of blade, sole, chipbreaker, scary sharpened to 1200 but I'm wondering if it could be made better with a bit more effort.

I'm not expecting see-thru 4 thou shavings, BUT if it could provide close to that with some work then I'm happy to do it, plus it'll help me diagnose when my old No.7 fixer-upper ebay special arrives.

as for the lever cap - I could add a small plastic sleeve to the bolt so the leading edge sits more on top of the hump rather than projecting over the front.

 

[Corneel]

Experiment a bit, do lots of planing, and it will all come together sooner then later. My humble beginnings were with that Handyman plane, and I now look down on it. But I learned quite a bit from it. When you have some cash floating around I would invest in a Stanley #4 or #5. There are plenty around and the UK made models are mostly plenty good enough. Sharpening is very important, so maybe invest in an oilstone first and a piece of leather for stropping.

If the levercap doesn't clog the shavings I wouldn't worry about it, but filing the edge a bit shorter won't harm it either.