Plane fettling

[Jacob]

Is that how you ***** the flatness of your plane for fitness?

If you recall, the question was regarding flatness of plane soles.

I don't go in for it at all. But if a plane couldn't be made to work well it's one of the things you might look at

 

[aet1]

I imagine the 1.5 thou LN specify is not because that is what is best but that is what their machines will give and it sounds good in their adverts. Many looking at the specs probably don't know how small 1.5 thou is.
Are we to assume that we need a plane with a 1.5 thou tolerance to create a flatness of 1.5 thou so we can make sound long joints - because if so there must be a lot of unusound joins made over the last few thousand years.
Perhpas I have the whole idea wrong, if I use a plane with that tolerance could I just pass it along the wood and not have to sight along the joint to check before gluing because I will know it is flat, or do I check, work on any high spots and check again (probably a few times)

 

[Jacob]

.......
Are we to assume that we need a plane with a 1.5 thou tolerance to create a flatness of 1.5 thou so we can make sound long joints -

No it's just advertising hype. A sound long joint depends entirely on technique, with whatever kit you happen to have.

because if so there must be a lot of unsound joins made over the last few thousand years.

Exactly

Perhpas I have the whole idea wrong, if I use a plane with that tolerance could I just pass it along the wood and not have to sight along the joint to check before gluing because I will know it is flat, or do I check, work on any high spots and check again (probably a few times)

That's the idea they are trying to propagate i.e. that a super-flat plane is essential to producing a flat surface. It's not true.
It might help, but basically it's all down to technique and practice.
It's ridiculous that I even have to say this but the main thing is to look at the surface you are planing, not at the quality of the shavings nor the readings from a feeler gauge!

 

[raffo]

Aet1,
do you have planes with 1.5 thousands tolerance? If don't, then what is it, +/-2, +/- 3 thousands?

That was the original question, how flat (I would also add in what direction) does a plane need to be to be functional?

Is it coupled with technique? What technique?

According to Jacob, you can get a straight edge with whatever you have and you only need good technique. Which sounds like a bogus claim when you can't state whether your plane is flat or not. For all I know his planes are all flat.

I found a Bedrock #6 with better than 1.5 thousands flatness, as found. The plane works very well. Should I attribute the performance of this plane solely to my technique?

 

[Jacob]

...

I found a Bedrock #6 with better than 1.5 thousands flatness, as found. The plane works very well. Should I attribute the performance of this plane solely to my technique?

Both. But without the technique you'd be fooked, with a bad plane, if sharp, you could probably cope, as millions do!
The trick is to look at, and to react to, the surface of the wood you are planing, not the shavings, not a feeler gauge, nor the brand name of the plane. A squiggle of candle wax will help.
PS the thing about "straight" or "flat" is that absolute perfection is unachievable, like absolute zero temperature. It's all about straight /flat enough.

 

[Ttrees]

Rob Cosman sells the Woodriver planes, and they are probably aiming for the same tolerance
being hollow to a minute extent to ensure flatness.
There's certainly a good few reasons for a manufacturer to have that specified.
It seems to work for Rob.
Conversely DW mentioned he prefers some convexity, once flattened/checked that is,
and mentioned the last time we had this groundhog thread.

So, lets get to the question posed regarding that.
Is a hefty edge joint the be all and end all, for checking the performance of a plane sole....

How about planing very thin stock, which will deflect with any discrepency,
planing like Charlesworth, i.e attention to the above, clean flat rigid bench, and planing in rows along the grain.

That I guess would be an equal test, well if not equal, nonetheless as important to me,
and I won't have any say in how flat or otherwise, i.e preferrable hinging spots something should be until I find that out for myself.

For now, I'm happy with something flat, i.e hollow like LN or shooting for such a spec.
Why?
Because I don't have a proper surface plate, nor straight edge, so safer by intending not to remove excessive material from the perimiter, as abrasion favours the edges.

Less work to "progress" with such a profile, should the last word, whatever that is, be proven,
compared to spot work/tagreted removal of everything but the perimiters,
if I were to opt for the same as what DW preffers.

IMO yet still unknown to me, and I'd like to read of some more challanging tests which I'm leaving out.

Tom

 

[aet1]

t leasat

Aet1,
do you have planes with 1.5 thousands tolerance? If don't, then what is it, +/-2, +/- 3 thousands?

That was the original question, how flat (I would also add in what direction) does a plane need to be to be functional?

Is it coupled with technique? What technique?

According to Jacob, you can get a straight edge with whatever you have and you only need good technique. Which sounds like a bogus claim when you can't state whether your plane is flat or not. For all I know his planes are all flat.

I found a Bedrock #6 with better than 1.5 thousands flatness, as found. The plane works very well. Should I attribute the performance of this plane solely to my technique?

Yes, I would say your technique is nearly all that is required. Trying to identify what that is would be tricky but it obviously works. I'm sure you would get the same results with a plane that does not have such a same degree of flatness.
How have you tested this flatness? I was thinking about testing before I read your reply and thought I'd need a good dial guage, stand and surface plate and a way of holding the plane very firmly so I have no idea at all what my plane is like.
I have mentioned before that I do not have money to spend on much at all, and after many of my tools were stolen I manage with a handful of tools and can only buy cheap tools even though at one time when I had more money I would never buy budget ones. So I rely on my Stanley 4 smoother for everything! I have no idea how flat it might be. I do know that even with just that tool I can flatten a length of timber to get a good glue joint and flatten a surface for a table top, so perhaps I have an unusually well made Stanley! I am sure I would get the same straightness rather quicker with a longer plane.
If anyone has any planes with better reputations than Stanley they would send me I am not too proud to turn them away....

 

[Jacob]

.......
Because I don't have a proper surface plate, nor straight edge,

Make yourself a straight edge, it is very easy. Or a steel ruler - a combi square ruler will do. You don't need a surface plate.

so safer by intending not to remove excessive material from the perimiter, as abrasion favours the edges.

Not if you do it properly. I've never heard of this perimeter thing. Where do you find all these odd ideas? Who made this one up or is it your own?

 

[thetyreman]

if I were to opt for the same as what DW preffers.

why? he's not even on the forum anymore and has no influence, but likely has several pseudonyms

 

[Ttrees]

Lots of convex planes out there with full length irons.
How do I know that????
Look at all the thin soled planes, typically on "job lots"...
That is what happens if you believe you can remove material from where you want only, when dealing with a plane which needs work,
i.e visible discrepancy when placed along any kind of straight edge.

If that's apparent, then one must remove material without touching the perimeter.
Colour in the perimeter and try removing material from elsewhere, without erasing the ink.
That's your answer to that one.

 

[Ttrees]

why? he's not even on the forum anymore and has no influence, but likely has several pseudonyms

You confused me with that one Ben.
He's over on the Ozzie/Australian woodworking forum.

Does anyone need repeat themselves, I take it we're not as forgetful as some folk make out to be.
I'll try finding the last thread and stick it in this post.

 

[raffo]

Yes, I would say your technique is nearly all that is required. Trying to identify what that is would be tricky but it obviously works. I'm sure you would get the same results with a plane that does not have such a same degree of flatness.

We're nowhere near an answer then, this is still opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't answer the question.

How have you tested this flatness? I was thinking about testing before I read your reply and thought I'd need a good dial guage, stand and surface plate and a way of holding the plane very firmly so I have no idea at all what my plane is like.

I just use a calibrated straight edge and a feeler gauge. The feeler either passes through or it doesn't. I don't think what you describe is necessary to assess a plane.

On my planes, if they pass this test on most of their surfaces, they're flat. Sometimes they're a bit worn at the heel and toe, but I don't bother with that.

Note that I've been sticking with edge planing because that's one of the easiest cuts to take.

 

[GerryT]

Lots of convex planes out there with full length irons.
How do I know that????
Look at all the thin soled planes, typically on "job lots"...
That is what happens if you believe you can remove material from where you want only, when dealing with a plane which needs work,
i.e visible discrepancy when placed along any kind of straight edge.

If that's apparent, then one must remove material without touching the perimeter.
Colour in the perimeter and try removing material from elsewhere, without erasing the ink.
That's your answer to that one.

I’m not quite sure how you can remove material from elsewhere and not touch the perimeter Tom without there being some convexity in the sole in the first place.
Even if there was some convexity, it would have to removed to be on a plane with perimeter.
If you ran the sole on a very narrow abrasive material that doesn’t extend to the perimeter the maybe but that seems pretty pointless.
Have I misunderstood you here ?

 

[Ttrees]

If you ran the sole on a very narrow abrasive material that doesn’t extend to the perimeter the maybe but that seems pretty pointless.
Have I misunderstood you here ?

Now, that's what I call flat.
Regardless of whether you take an abrasive block, or lay a strip of abrasive smaller than the work,
the outcome is the same.
Finish up with a lick on a full sized sheet or roll as usual, shouldn't take but a wipe or two to remove the ink, as I'd guess at that point, (I don't have calibrated stuff)
things are thereabouts at the same state with the premium tools,
i.e some small convexity.
(hence why some speculators might not have noticed)
This should be noted especially for long planes, and if willing to believe that one can
disregard paying attention to the perimeter, then all I can say to this is...

You'd better have a tool handy to check progress, and not the plate which the abrasive is rigged up on.

Tom

 

[Jacob]

Lots of convex planes out there with full length irons.
How do I know that????
Look at all the thin soled planes, typically on "job lots"...
That is what happens if you believe you can remove material from where you want only, when dealing with a plane which needs work,
i.e visible discrepancy when placed along any kind of straight edge.

If that's apparent, then one must remove material without touching the perimeter.
Colour in the perimeter and try removing material from elsewhere, without erasing the ink.
That's your answer to that one.

I remember that job lot of knackered planes you posted about some time ago.
They'd probably had been rescued from some sort of crazy plane flattening cult - there's a lot of it about!
They were very unusual and I've never seen anything like them, so I wouldn't lose any more sleep over them if I were you.
Your perimeter trick is logically impossible, I'd try and forget that too.

 

[Woody Alan]

Surely poking a 1.5 thou feeler gauge around the edge of a plane on a reference surface (assuming it does not slide under), still doesn't tell you it's flat only that the perimeter of the sole is consistent with itself, could be a gaping void in the middle . Only a proper bluing will confirm flat.

 

[Ttrees]

Another round of this daftness.
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/goodie-bag.142868/#post-1665146
There's no other way to get something flat, other than paying attention to the perimeter,
think winding sticks
For hand planes the usual routine is to use sandpaper, so one can't say... simply grind a hollow using flap discs and follow up on a flat plate, due to risking cutting too deeply or whatever.
It's not rocket science, and is important if wanting to do more than simply knock off the crud on some unused plane.

I have a whole load of things which aren't flat which I could show off, but it seems your eyes make up what ever up you please.
Easy to prove abrasion favours the ends with a permanent marker, especially for something convex.
i.e things don't need to be flat to take notice of it being impossible to achieve otherwise.

Nice try though

Tom

 

[Jacob]

Another round of this daftness.
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/goodie-bag.142868/#post-1665146
There's no other way to get something flat, other than paying attention to the perimeter,
think winding sticks
For hand planes the usual routine is to use sandpaper, so one can't say... simply grind a hollow using flap discs and follow up on a flat plate, due to risking cutting too deeply or whatever.
It's not rocket science, and is important if wanting to do more than simply knock off the crud on some unused plane.

I have a whole load of things which aren't flat which I could show off, but it seems your eyes make up what ever up you please.
Easy to prove abrasion favours the ends with a permanent marker, especially for something convex.
i.e things don't need to be flat to take notice of it being impossible to achieve otherwise.

Nice try though

Tom

I think you need to dump this script Tom, it's not doing you or your planes any good.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I’m not quite sure how you can remove material from elsewhere and not touch the perimeter Tom without there being some convexity in the sole in the first place.
Even if there was some convexity, it would have to removed to be on a plane with perimeter.
If you ran the sole on a very narrow abrasive material that doesn’t extend to the perimeter the maybe but that seems pretty pointless.
Have I misunderstood you here ?

Scraping

 

[weigen369]

Scraping There are no shortcuts