Wendell
Established Member
Aren't the blades on C&W and Knight planes much thicker than metal bevel down bench plane irons? I always thought that was the reason they didn't need a cap iron.
Wendell
Wendell
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Midnight":2fpzoin6 said:
From an engineering standpoint, it would seem that a bevel down plane could get by without a chipbreaker if it's blade were thick enough - 3/16ths or greater - and had good support from the frog and lever cap.
The chipbreaker, nice euphemism as it does no such thing; the throat and the blade break the chips - does little more than serve to support the thin blades that were the standard back in the days of yesteryear. With the advent of 3/16th and 1/4" blades, the chipbreaker is kept around for purely sentimental and asthetic reasons.
Frank D.
Established Member
If the chipbreaker is placed close enough to the edge it does help to break the chip by increasing the slope the chip has to follow as it's being pushed through the mouth. This is at least true for type I chips, which are thicker and for which you can't set an excessively tight mouth. It can also help for diving grain, when chips can break beyond the mouth. But to do this it has to be set just a tad farther from the edge than the depth of the cut.ydb1md":2yubhos7 said:
Frank
MikeW
Established Member
How about that? Near 90 replies over a 3 week period and I have, until now, avoided this thread.
Tony, by now you must have realized that this topic is as close to a hand tool "religious" debate as it can get! Seems just about equally split in two--for or against BU (no matter how configured). And judging by 1800 plus views there are a lot of people who either don't have an opinion, don't care or are just simply smarter than I am and haven't weighed in. Most likely the latter.
Here I go, both feet into the middle of it...
Simple answer? Both are true reasons. As shown in the last of your quotes below they (BU) simply do not produce desired results in all situations for all people.
As to the latest fad question, why did *you* purchase yours? Did you try one before you bought it? I know I certainly bought mine before using one. In that sense at least I bought it due to what I had heard people say/write about them.
At the first it was a mixed bag of results for me. But then so were BD planes until I learned that one could make them produce fairly consistent results depending on how it was fettled, adjusted and sharpened.
Then, much later, I "learned" about infills and had to have one. And it did produce great results. That old Preston infill has been a "go to" plane ever since. But it too does not always work great for every wood it touches.
A few years ago I bought an ebony smoother from Steve Knight. It worked great--but again, not on everything it touched.
In fact, the *only* smoother I have that works no matter what the wood is (also from Steve), is a small (7 inch) 1 3/4" blade 50 deg one. As I told him yesterday, there is nothing that leaves my shop that has not been touched by it.
But there are stock preparation steps and planes used prior to getting to the point where that plane is used. But I digress...
More like a couple thousand years. The planes we are use to using in the European tradition evolved as time passed as you note. But they mostly developed along parallel paths. A few "innovations" that made them produce better/more consistent results maybe, but basically they have remained the same since Roman times.
The assumption is that BD down was the only style plane available to the worker. It's not true...
I think when you are saying "standard" angle you are referring to BD. I do not know how far back in history a BU plane goes, but at least by Chippendale's time he had BU planes available as shown in Denis Diderot's books (a contemporary of Chippendale, mid 1700s). If I remember correctly, a century earlier Moxon has a BU plane in his work, published in 1678.
There were also BD planes in those time periods that had different bedding angles, some higher (look like 60 deg) and the more common looking like in the forty deg range.
Basically by Moxon's book's time period, a fairly and fully developed range of planes were in place and used by joiners, etc.
As above, BU planes have been around a really long time. Because of that, I would say it is more of a resurgence than anything else. But then, why should any development/improvements be made to planes? In fact, the planes we have available to us today are the results of consistent fiddling by users and makers.
Looking back at just the history of Stanley one can see that not all "improvements" really are useful. I would surmise that people have developed all sorts of "innovations" on planes for centuries that have been utter rubbish. What really makes me wonder, though, is what "innovations" have been developed for handplanes in time gone by that if but for acceptance would have made our work easier/better?
Accepted as working better by who? I think that for myself and other proponents of BU planes you just stated a major reason why to have one (or more <g>) BU plane--as well as evidence the confusion on the issue.
A BU plane is simply more versatile in its application to different woods and tasks. With two or three irons ground at increasingly steeper angles, they *can* work on nearly any wood--at least as well as most any other BD handplane. It is a matter of adjustment and experience.
However, when one *can* use it in its lower angle incarnation, I believe it takes less effort to push through the cut. That's one reason. I don't know about others here, but I get tired pushing a plane and for that reason I use the lowest angle plane that will produce the desired result. It simply takes less effort.
Like Alf and others here, I have a wide collection, er, selection of planes from which to choose whether BD or BU. As I mentioned at the beginning, not every one is suitable for the task at hand. Partly that is because of the way they are set up to use. Partly that is because for whatever mystical reason they just don't work the same regardless of whether they are set up equally (same angle, fineness of mouth, etc.). Why that is I don't really care. It just is.
Whether it is BU or BD, there has been for most of us users a learning curve associated with handplane use. I would reckon that you have grown in your ability to use a BD plane to its fullest capability, but it probably wasn't always so. Same with the BU handplanes.
But not all BU planes are equal, either. Just like BD planes among the better made and or fettled ones, there are good ones and acceptable ones.
I believe that currently the Canadian makes a better one, if for no other reason than I like the Norton-style adjuster better. It is a slower adjuster to be sure, but especially on a low-angle plane it is easier for me to "sneak up" on the desired depth of cut.
Generally? Does that mean on some woods the BU plane works better than the BD smoother? If so, that's one of the reasons to own one.
If I knew back when I first started using handplanes what I think I do now *and* if BU planes of the quality and cost that are available to us who use handplanes was available then, I would have started out owning a couple BU planes with a few irons ground at different angles for the versatility and wider use of application. This might have saved me both money and frustration.
As for my opinion of some of the spurious threads within this topic that have been raised:
Cutting wood with a handplane (or whatever) and arriving at an acceptable level of cut involves controlled failure at the point of contact with the wood's surface.
In so far as a smoother is concerned, it *does not* matter whether it is a wood plane, a metal plane, a BD or BU plane. It *does not* matter whether there is an *additional* chip breaker or if it is lacking one. All that matters is controlling the ability of the plane to remove wood in an acceptable manner.
That controlled failure of the wood lifting from the surface depends on so many things. I believe mainly it involves the wood itself. As for tearout, I have yet to try a handplane that will *consistently* without premature failure (tearout) smooth a surface of some slabs of curly Bubinga I possess. The best one is that little smoother from Steve Knight. And it does not have a wedge that acts as a chip breaker.
On a smoother, using a fine cut the wood is simply so pliable as to not need one. If you are a believer that a plane *has* to have a chip breaker, have you ever looked at the shavings from a very fine cut? There is no breakage of the shaving whether the plane has one or not. If your smoother that "has" to have a chip breaker has an adjustable mouth, try setting the cut for both an extremely fine mouth AND an extremely fine cut. Inspect the shaving. Any breakage? Nope. None. Nada.
Now open the mouth *a little* but do not adjust the blade or at least make it have the same depth of cut. Any breakage of the shaving? Probably not.
Now deepen the cut just a smidge. Keep adjusting down and or opening the mouth a little. Yep, the shaving is beginning to break. Maybe even a little tearout. But the breakage is both because the mouth is opened and the depth of cut is deeper.
By opening the mouth you have allowed the shaving to begin to split the wood in front of the blade over a greater distance. Depending on how much the mouth is opened, this leverage is what will begin to cause tearout--assuming that the piece of wood can even be planed without tearout.
By deepening a cut, the shaving is thicker. At some point this thickness *has* to be broken prior to the shaving splitting in front of and below the mouth of the plane. If the thicker shaving is not broken then a condition of uncontrolled failure exists.
Aside from the plane and its appropriate adjustments for depth of cut and mouth opening, it also depends on the user. Heck, maybe the day of the week or the phase of the moon. But as there are planes with and without cap irons that work just fine, it does not depend on its presence.
As stated at the beginning of this missive, there are some smoothing planes I own that just work better than others on any particular piece of wood. I doubt I will ever have a single handplane that will be the only smoother I "need" to own. I doubt it exists. Even if it did, though, would that very handplane work as well for everyone else? Anyone else?
In the meantime, I will grab whichever plane that will do the task at hand that involves less energy. Some of the time it means using my Knight 60 deg, 5 lb Lignum Vitae smoother. Some of the time that means my BU LV smoother.
Tony, by now you must have realized that this topic is as close to a hand tool "religious" debate as it can get! Seems just about equally split in two--for or against BU (no matter how configured). And judging by 1800 plus views there are a lot of people who either don't have an opinion, don't care or are just simply smarter than I am and haven't weighed in. Most likely the latter.
Here I go, both feet into the middle of it...
Tony":1h3x5m3y said:
Simple answer? Both are true reasons. As shown in the last of your quotes below they (BU) simply do not produce desired results in all situations for all people.
As to the latest fad question, why did *you* purchase yours? Did you try one before you bought it? I know I certainly bought mine before using one. In that sense at least I bought it due to what I had heard people say/write about them.
At the first it was a mixed bag of results for me. But then so were BD planes until I learned that one could make them produce fairly consistent results depending on how it was fettled, adjusted and sharpened.
Then, much later, I "learned" about infills and had to have one. And it did produce great results. That old Preston infill has been a "go to" plane ever since. But it too does not always work great for every wood it touches.
A few years ago I bought an ebony smoother from Steve Knight. It worked great--but again, not on everything it touched.
In fact, the *only* smoother I have that works no matter what the wood is (also from Steve), is a small (7 inch) 1 3/4" blade 50 deg one. As I told him yesterday, there is nothing that leaves my shop that has not been touched by it.
But there are stock preparation steps and planes used prior to getting to the point where that plane is used. But I digress...
Tony":1h3x5m3y said:
More like a couple thousand years. The planes we are use to using in the European tradition evolved as time passed as you note. But they mostly developed along parallel paths. A few "innovations" that made them produce better/more consistent results maybe, but basically they have remained the same since Roman times.
The assumption is that BD down was the only style plane available to the worker. It's not true...
Tony":1h3x5m3y said:
I think when you are saying "standard" angle you are referring to BD. I do not know how far back in history a BU plane goes, but at least by Chippendale's time he had BU planes available as shown in Denis Diderot's books (a contemporary of Chippendale, mid 1700s). If I remember correctly, a century earlier Moxon has a BU plane in his work, published in 1678.
There were also BD planes in those time periods that had different bedding angles, some higher (look like 60 deg) and the more common looking like in the forty deg range.
Basically by Moxon's book's time period, a fairly and fully developed range of planes were in place and used by joiners, etc.
Tony":1h3x5m3y said:
As above, BU planes have been around a really long time. Because of that, I would say it is more of a resurgence than anything else. But then, why should any development/improvements be made to planes? In fact, the planes we have available to us today are the results of consistent fiddling by users and makers.
Looking back at just the history of Stanley one can see that not all "improvements" really are useful. I would surmise that people have developed all sorts of "innovations" on planes for centuries that have been utter rubbish. What really makes me wonder, though, is what "innovations" have been developed for handplanes in time gone by that if but for acceptance would have made our work easier/better?
Tony":1h3x5m3y said:
Accepted as working better by who? I think that for myself and other proponents of BU planes you just stated a major reason why to have one (or more <g>) BU plane--as well as evidence the confusion on the issue.
A BU plane is simply more versatile in its application to different woods and tasks. With two or three irons ground at increasingly steeper angles, they *can* work on nearly any wood--at least as well as most any other BD handplane. It is a matter of adjustment and experience.
However, when one *can* use it in its lower angle incarnation, I believe it takes less effort to push through the cut. That's one reason. I don't know about others here, but I get tired pushing a plane and for that reason I use the lowest angle plane that will produce the desired result. It simply takes less effort.
Like Alf and others here, I have a wide collection, er, selection of planes from which to choose whether BD or BU. As I mentioned at the beginning, not every one is suitable for the task at hand. Partly that is because of the way they are set up to use. Partly that is because for whatever mystical reason they just don't work the same regardless of whether they are set up equally (same angle, fineness of mouth, etc.). Why that is I don't really care. It just is.
Whether it is BU or BD, there has been for most of us users a learning curve associated with handplane use. I would reckon that you have grown in your ability to use a BD plane to its fullest capability, but it probably wasn't always so. Same with the BU handplanes.
But not all BU planes are equal, either. Just like BD planes among the better made and or fettled ones, there are good ones and acceptable ones.
I believe that currently the Canadian makes a better one, if for no other reason than I like the Norton-style adjuster better. It is a slower adjuster to be sure, but especially on a low-angle plane it is easier for me to "sneak up" on the desired depth of cut.
Tony":1h3x5m3y said:
Generally? Does that mean on some woods the BU plane works better than the BD smoother? If so, that's one of the reasons to own one.
If I knew back when I first started using handplanes what I think I do now *and* if BU planes of the quality and cost that are available to us who use handplanes was available then, I would have started out owning a couple BU planes with a few irons ground at different angles for the versatility and wider use of application. This might have saved me both money and frustration.
As for my opinion of some of the spurious threads within this topic that have been raised:
Cutting wood with a handplane (or whatever) and arriving at an acceptable level of cut involves controlled failure at the point of contact with the wood's surface.
In so far as a smoother is concerned, it *does not* matter whether it is a wood plane, a metal plane, a BD or BU plane. It *does not* matter whether there is an *additional* chip breaker or if it is lacking one. All that matters is controlling the ability of the plane to remove wood in an acceptable manner.
That controlled failure of the wood lifting from the surface depends on so many things. I believe mainly it involves the wood itself. As for tearout, I have yet to try a handplane that will *consistently* without premature failure (tearout) smooth a surface of some slabs of curly Bubinga I possess. The best one is that little smoother from Steve Knight. And it does not have a wedge that acts as a chip breaker.
On a smoother, using a fine cut the wood is simply so pliable as to not need one. If you are a believer that a plane *has* to have a chip breaker, have you ever looked at the shavings from a very fine cut? There is no breakage of the shaving whether the plane has one or not. If your smoother that "has" to have a chip breaker has an adjustable mouth, try setting the cut for both an extremely fine mouth AND an extremely fine cut. Inspect the shaving. Any breakage? Nope. None. Nada.
Now open the mouth *a little* but do not adjust the blade or at least make it have the same depth of cut. Any breakage of the shaving? Probably not.
Now deepen the cut just a smidge. Keep adjusting down and or opening the mouth a little. Yep, the shaving is beginning to break. Maybe even a little tearout. But the breakage is both because the mouth is opened and the depth of cut is deeper.
By opening the mouth you have allowed the shaving to begin to split the wood in front of the blade over a greater distance. Depending on how much the mouth is opened, this leverage is what will begin to cause tearout--assuming that the piece of wood can even be planed without tearout.
By deepening a cut, the shaving is thicker. At some point this thickness *has* to be broken prior to the shaving splitting in front of and below the mouth of the plane. If the thicker shaving is not broken then a condition of uncontrolled failure exists.
Aside from the plane and its appropriate adjustments for depth of cut and mouth opening, it also depends on the user. Heck, maybe the day of the week or the phase of the moon. But as there are planes with and without cap irons that work just fine, it does not depend on its presence.
As stated at the beginning of this missive, there are some smoothing planes I own that just work better than others on any particular piece of wood. I doubt I will ever have a single handplane that will be the only smoother I "need" to own. I doubt it exists. Even if it did, though, would that very handplane work as well for everyone else? Anyone else?
In the meantime, I will grab whichever plane that will do the task at hand that involves less energy. Some of the time it means using my Knight 60 deg, 5 lb Lignum Vitae smoother. Some of the time that means my BU LV smoother.
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
A couple of points.
Firstly, it is my understanding that a chipbreaker (as LN term it), or cap iron (as Stanley term it) is only indicated in bevel down planes with a cutting angle below 55 degrees. I will expand on this below.
Secondly, while it is primarily for stabilizing and stiffening the blade, there is little doubt that it does effect the efficiency of planing. Whether it does this in its designated role of clearing chips is debatable, but it does effect the way chips are cleared. Many of my planes do not use a cap iron, but those that do demand attention when setting them up. The irony here is that my serious smoothers are for planing hardwoods, so they typically have HA angles of attack and, consequently do not use a chip breaker. When they do use a chip breaker, the chip breaker functions best when pulled back from the bevel edge since the tighter curls of short-grained timber otherwise gets jammed in the mouth. At the other end of the spectrum I know that Hitachi Steel did a study on the effectiveness of chipbreakers in softwoods. The chipbreakers had no desired chipbreaking effect until it was positioned .5mm or closer to the edge. I do not know how thick were the blades used in this study, but I imagine that they were typically thick Japanese blades and used standard- or lower cutting angles. If so, blade stability, per se, would not have been an issue. Instead it would have been about clearing the softer long grain from the mouth. If this is correct, then it may serve to define the narrow range in which the cap iron becomes an effective "chip breaker".
Regards from Perth
Derek
Firstly, it is my understanding that a chipbreaker (as LN term it), or cap iron (as Stanley term it) is only indicated in bevel down planes with a cutting angle below 55 degrees. I will expand on this below.
Secondly, while it is primarily for stabilizing and stiffening the blade, there is little doubt that it does effect the efficiency of planing. Whether it does this in its designated role of clearing chips is debatable, but it does effect the way chips are cleared. Many of my planes do not use a cap iron, but those that do demand attention when setting them up. The irony here is that my serious smoothers are for planing hardwoods, so they typically have HA angles of attack and, consequently do not use a chip breaker. When they do use a chip breaker, the chip breaker functions best when pulled back from the bevel edge since the tighter curls of short-grained timber otherwise gets jammed in the mouth. At the other end of the spectrum I know that Hitachi Steel did a study on the effectiveness of chipbreakers in softwoods. The chipbreakers had no desired chipbreaking effect until it was positioned .5mm or closer to the edge. I do not know how thick were the blades used in this study, but I imagine that they were typically thick Japanese blades and used standard- or lower cutting angles. If so, blade stability, per se, would not have been an issue. Instead it would have been about clearing the softer long grain from the mouth. If this is correct, then it may serve to define the narrow range in which the cap iron becomes an effective "chip breaker".
Regards from Perth
Derek
bugbear
Established Member
Bugger (as you knew ;-)
Frank D.
Established Member
Glad you got around to responding, Mike. :shock:
I printed that one out...
I printed that one out...
A
Anonymous
Guest
Alf":xv9gr5lh said:Welcome, Ben. I dunno; adding a handle and the option of a lower bedding angle seems fairly "new" to me. :-k
Cheers, Alf
Hi Alf:
Doug here - thought I would join in here too! This version of Spiers plane was actually named the Improved Mitre (as opposed to his older boxier model). Thus, we would have to call ours the Improved Improved Mitre Plane or the Further Improved Mitre Plane or perhaps The Refined Improved Mitre Plane...
Cheers,
Doug
Alf
Established Member
Welcome to you too, Doug. How about the "New" Improved Mitre Plane...? :wink:
Cheers, Alf
How about the "New" Improved Mitre Plane...? :wink: Cheers, Alf
A
Anonymous
Guest
MikeW":2g1vcbsc said:
Only one reason.
To use on end grain on the shooting board. Low angle blades work best on end grain and my LA block is too small for a shooting board
