very thin blades and very thick chip breaker?

[ali27]

I was wondering if one could use a 1mm thick plane blade with a very thick chip breaker that could work without chatter. Reason I ask is simple, a thin blade is way is easier to maintain; no need for grinding.

Stanley plane blades are around 2.2 mm or so. The stanley chip breaker is not so sturdy, yet when tuned correctly it works ok. I was thinking about the possibility of using a very thin blade with a very thick 2 piece chip breaker. One that extends closer to the cutting edge than the clifton cap iron.

Thanks.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Possibly, but I think a lot would depend on the support for the blade, and the solidity of the clamping.

A very thin blade used bevel-down in a plane might work if the plane was designed with a blade bed that extended right to the mouth, and with clamping that held the blade close to it's working edge. It might also work in a bevel-up configuration, with support from the plane's bed right to the mouth, and solid clamping holding it in place.

I suspect that if a blade as thin as 1mm was used in a plane of Bailey design, the support for the cutting edge would be too far back, and the blade would flutter uncontrollably (especially so if the frog was adjusted ahead of the mouth, as it is for a narrow mouth opening). Many Bailey plane users prefer a slightly thicker blade than standard, especially for demanding timbers, precisely because the standard blade is prone to chatter.

Bear in mind that stiffness of something like a plane blade is proportional to the cube of it's thickness (though the cap-iron and lever cap will affect stiffness in practice). Thus, a comparatively small INCREASE in thickness will stiffen a blade significantly; a small DECREASE in thickness will reduce it's stiffness disproportionately. Thus, a significantly less stiff blade than standard will need significantly better support than it would get in a standard Bailey type plane to work successfully.

 

[Dovetaildave]

I was wondering if one could use a 1mm thick plane blade with a very thick chip breaker that could work without chatter. Reason I ask is simple, a thin blade is way is easier to maintain; no need for grinding.

Stanley plane blades are around 2.2 mm or so. The stanley chip breaker is not so sturdy, yet when tuned correctly it works ok. I was thinking about the possibility of using a very thin blade with a very thick 2 piece chip breaker. One that extends closer to the cutting edge than the clifton cap iron.

Thanks.

That's a great idea Ali.....hope the right people are reading this

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

A 2 piece cap iron can only add stiffness to the blade via tension on the lever cap. I do not think you could make a 1mm thick iron stiff enough to bring it back up to the levels of stiffness of a standard blade, let alone a thicker one, which seems to be a benefit. It comes to a point where the trade off in convenience in sharpening is outweighed by the lack of stiffness, tighter lever cap setting and its effect on the adjuster, possible over stressing of moving parts causing failure etc. it is not that difficult to maintain a standard blade anyway, I doubt a thinner one would be much easier. Bailey planes were designed in the era of hand sharpening with stones only, after all.

A Clifton cap iron can extent very close to the blade tip in any case.

Paramo and Stanley both made planes with very thin irons and a clamping block affair to hold the blade and give support. They were both terrible performers! I think over the history of planes, the thinest blades we see in general use are the absolute minimum for adequate plane performance. The consensus seems to be thicker is better, for more demanding timbers. I can't see thinner ever being raised to the standard we already enjoy, when grindstones are easily available to overcome the only (slight) disadvantage of thicker blades. Hand cranked ones are great for those who don't want to use electricity!

Mike.

 

[lurker]

. Reason I ask is simple, a thin blade is way is easier to maintain; no need for grinding.
.

Unless you get a ding in the blade why do you need to grind very often?
A quick mental tot up , I think I have maybe 25-30 plane blades. I cannot remember the last time one went near a grinder.

 

[Vann]

Stanley plane blades are around 2.2 mm or so.

My oldest Stanley irons (USA made) are down to 1.95mm thick - which may or may not be because of frequent lapping by previous owners.

The stanley chip breaker is not so sturdy, yet when tuned correctly it works ok.

The Stanley cap-iron is designed to lay flat on the cutting iron from its top, all the way down to immediately above the "hump". With the exception of a few early Stanleys, none I've seen sit correctly. I suspect that no English "Bailey" (Stanley or Record) has ever been made to the patent drawing - they all have gaps between the two irons below the screw. Hence the trend to heavier irons and/or heavier cap-irons that actually lay flat.

But that doesn't answer your query.

One that extends closer to the cutting edge than the clifton cap iron.

I don't understand what you mean here. You can extend the cap iron right down to sit flush with the cutting edge if you want to (not that it would cut very well if you did).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[ali27]

Stanley plane blades are around 2.2 mm or so.

My oldest Stanley irons (USA made) are down to 1.95mm thick - which may or may not be because of frequent lapping by previous owners.

The stanley chip breaker is not so sturdy, yet when tuned correctly it works ok.

The Stanley cap-iron is designed to lay flat on the cutting iron from its top, all the way down to immediately above the "hump". With the exception of a few early Stanleys, none I've seen sit correctly. I suspect that no English "Bailey" (Stanley or Record) has ever been made to the patent drawing - they all have gaps between the two irons below the screw. Hence the trend to heavier irons and/or heavier cap-irons that actually lay flat.

But that doesn't answer your query.

One that extends closer to the cutting edge than the clifton cap iron.

I don't understand what you mean here. You can extend the cap iron right down to sit flush with the cutting edge if you want to (not that it would cut very well if you did).

Cheers, Vann.

Well the clifton cap iron is 2 pieces, I meant the flat piece. Perhaps bringing that part closer to the edge might help.

Ali

 

[ali27]

Possibly, but I think a lot would depend on the support for the blade, and the solidity of the clamping.

A very thin blade used bevel-down in a plane might work if the plane was designed with a blade bed that extended right to the mouth, and with clamping that held the blade close to it's working edge. It might also work in a bevel-up configuration, with support from the plane's bed right to the mouth, and solid clamping holding it in place.

I suspect that if a blade as thin as 1mm was used in a plane of Bailey design, the support for the cutting edge would be too far back, and the blade would flutter uncontrollably (especially so if the frog was adjusted ahead of the mouth, as it is for a narrow mouth opening). Many Bailey plane users prefer a slightly thicker blade than standard, especially for demanding timbers, precisely because the standard blade is prone to chatter.

Bear in mind that stiffness of something like a plane blade is proportional to the cube of it's thickness (though the cap-iron and lever cap will affect stiffness in practice). Thus, a comparatively small INCREASE in thickness will stiffen a blade significantly; a small DECREASE in thickness will reduce it's stiffness disproportionately. Thus, a significantly less stiff blade than standard will need significantly better support than it would get in a standard Bailey type plane to work successfully.

Responding to your last paragraph. Couldn't this be solved simply, by making the blade much shorter?

Ali

 

[Trafalgar]

This is worth a read and I think Sellers is essentially correct:

https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-co ... s-chatter/

 

[MIGNAL]

What's so hard about grinding thick blades? OK I have a hand crank but I haven't used it in a long, long time. Surely you could go to the two bevel (micro) grind with a very coarse Oil, Diamond or Japanese stone, then do the micro with a fine stone. A two stone system.
At one time I would grind on the hand crank (120 Grit!) and go straight to an 8,000 Grit waterstone, nothing between the two grits. When the fine grit bevel was becoming too wide I would go back to the hand crank and grind almost to the very edge, just leaving a thin glint from the previous 8,000. You can do that with a hand crank because it's easy to control, once you've mastered the action of the grinder that is.
I don't see why you can't do the same with a very coarse stone, after that switch to a fine stone. All the subsequent sharpenings are done with a fine stone and strop until the polished edge becomes too wide. Then it's back to the coarse stone but stopping just short of the edge. Again it's easy to control using hand power.
It's a simple and workable system. I don't know which coarse stone grinds the quickest, I guess it would be the Japanese stone. Diamond are quick when they are fairly fresh.

 

[bugbear]

This is worth a read and I think Sellers is essentially correct:

https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-co ... s-chatter/

I think Sellars is tilting at non-existant windmills again. Both chatter and "the other thing"
are real and quite complex. Like most complex phenomona, they can both be affected
(and potentialy reduced) by changing one or more of the causes.

A decade ago, this was experimented on and discussed on the OLDTOOLS list,
and the two terms "chatter" and "skitter" used to differentiate the two effects.

BugBear

 

[adrspach]

Not sure id this is right place but somebody already mentioned here about quality of Stanley/ bailey blades and cap irons.
I just spent 2 hours lapping old pre 1900 Bailey blade and cap iron as they were not sitting properly together. Actually they did when just sitting on each other without any screw pressure. once they were tightened together with the screw one side was still ok but the other had a gap. After all that fidling and getting angry I just realised that all that mess was from the thread angle of the screw. Few taps lengthwise through middle of the cap stiffened it as well as redistributed presure the screw more evenly through the front edge of the cap. Later today I have to plane some hardwood and we will see if problem was solved without any sideeffects.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Possibly, but I think a lot would depend on the support for the blade, and the solidity of the clamping.

A very thin blade used bevel-down in a plane might work if the plane was designed with a blade bed that extended right to the mouth, and with clamping that held the blade close to it's working edge. It might also work in a bevel-up configuration, with support from the plane's bed right to the mouth, and solid clamping holding it in place.

I suspect that if a blade as thin as 1mm was used in a plane of Bailey design, the support for the cutting edge would be too far back, and the blade would flutter uncontrollably (especially so if the frog was adjusted ahead of the mouth, as it is for a narrow mouth opening). Many Bailey plane users prefer a slightly thicker blade than standard, especially for demanding timbers, precisely because the standard blade is prone to chatter.

Bear in mind that stiffness of something like a plane blade is proportional to the cube of it's thickness (though the cap-iron and lever cap will affect stiffness in practice). Thus, a comparatively small INCREASE in thickness will stiffen a blade significantly; a small DECREASE in thickness will reduce it's stiffness disproportionately. Thus, a significantly less stiff blade than standard will need significantly better support than it would get in a standard Bailey type plane to work successfully.

Responding to your last paragraph. Couldn't this be solved simply, by making the blade much shorter?

Ali

No. The length of the blade is pretty well immaterial. What is important (if trying a very thin blade) is that it is supported and clamped well, especially as near the cutting edge as can be sensibly arranged. In a Bailey plane, support and clamping are just about good enough for a blade of about 2mm thick; I suspect that a blade much thinner than that will not be a very good performer.

 

[Vann]

Possibly, but I think a lot would depend on the support for the blade, and the solidity of the clamping.

A very thin blade used bevel-down in a plane might work if the plane was designed with a blade bed that extended right to the mouth, and with clamping that held the blade close to it's working edge. It might also work in a bevel-up configuration, with support from the plane's bed right to the mouth, and solid clamping holding it in place.

So, if Ali is determined to try a super-thin cutting iron, the ideal plane to experiment with would be one of the Veritas bevel down range, where the frog extends through the sole of the plane to form part of the sole. That should give support all the way to the bevel.

I can't think of any other brands that have this feature, except maybe the new Stanley SW No.4. I'm not sure how close the frog gets to the working surface of the sole in a Bedrock design - but probably not close enough.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[MIGNAL]

I have a SW 4. I'll check, of course it has a fixed frog. You would need to find/buy/make a thin blade that also had the correct holes or slots for the adjusting mechanism and chipbreaker.
This all sounds like it's getting difficult. May as well buy a hand crank!

 

[Vann]

You would need to find/buy/make a thin blade that also had the correct holes or slots for the adjusting mechanism and chipbreaker.

If it was me, I'd take a standard cutting iron - one with too much pitting to be worth hand lapping - and have it surface ground down to the thickness desired*. The Veritas cutting irons look to be very similar to a standard Bailey/Bedrock iron, so hopefully the slot is near enough the same. I've no idea with the Stanley SW No.4.

* if it was old enough to possibly be laminated, I'd have it surface ground from both sides, with only just enough to remove the pitting from the face side.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[bugbear]

You would need to find/buy/make a thin blade that also had the correct holes or slots for the adjusting mechanism and chipbreaker.

If it was me, I'd take a standard cutting iron - one with too much pitting to be worth hand lapping - and have it surface ground down to the thickness desired*. The Veritas cutting irons look to be very similar to a standard Bailey/Bedrock iron, so hopefully the slot is near enough the same. I've no idea with the Stanley SW No.4.

* if it was old enough to possibly be laminated, I'd have it surface ground from both sides, with only just enough to remove the pitting from the face side.

Cheers, Vann.

Heh. That's a lot of grinding when Ali's idea is to avoid grinding.

BugBear

 

[adrspach]

Just to give you an idea how much grinding it is.
I have done it ot old blade for my 5 1/2 Stanley. The blade was old laminated non paralel one from.
The surface grinder was non watercooled and 1" wide stone. It took me 1 hour and 45 minutes as there was no automatic movement al of it had to be done by spining winders. After that time I had difficulty to keep my hands straight.
I had to adapt the slot inside of the blade to fit Stanley/ Bailey cap iron but that part of the blade is soft steel and can be worked with normal tools.
What I found that once I got close to the laminating lane from the back of the blade the transition is not that smooth (there are some inclusions probably left overs from the lamination process) and I wonder how long it will last.
So far I am happy with it but please take it with a pinch od salt from me as my planing experience is minimal. My next project will be to adapt old cap to fit Stanley and work.
To be honest I thing it would be probably more effective to make thin blade from scratch.

 

[mathias]

The different parts are upside down compared to a traditional plane but other than that it works with a 1.2mm thick iron:

http://blumtool.com/pages/benchplanes.html

http://inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/Bl ... lanes.html

 

[Normancb]

Same sort of idea is used in the Swiss Rali planes which use a thin, throw-away iron. No experience of them myself but some people must like them as they have been around for a long time.