Where did the knowledge about the capiron get lost?

[Trafalgar]

Thanks for that post and your link to BB's post, which has a link to an article on Woodcentral which clearly shows a board that HAS NOT been planed tear out free. There is still tear out and chatter plainly evident in the reversing stripe of grain. The board is not in acceptable condition for a prominent component of an article of fine furniture. There also looks to be a plane track that has caught the light in the upper quarter of the photo. The poor quality would be even more evident after applying a finish. The section of board in the photo is nowhere near being 'planed to a finish-ready condition.' Not really even close. If these results are supposed to represent the results that are being crowed about then it explains a lot. In the context of an article touting the benefits and abilities of a closely set cap iron why are we seeing a board in such a state?

Here: http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/tes ... _935.shtml

Compare and contrast the amount of beginning tear out and the end result above with that shown here:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/shavingaperture53.html

The results at Jeff Gorman's site are at least as good if not better and in an as difficult or more difficult species/board to plane.

 

[D_W]

I don't know a lot about hand planes and my only idea of the frog was that it was there to hold the plane blade at the right angle and to provide side and depth adjustment. This whole idea of adjusting the frog back and forth, a topic I had to research after reading last nights replies, is new to me. So that's what's meant by opening the mouth of the plane up, I first thought people where saying "take a file to the mouth and make it bigger". But that didn't seem reasonable.

When I said relieve the moth on the plane I did mean take a file to it. Not to make the mouth bigger on the soul but file at an angle so as the shavings get pushed forward by the chip breaker they have somewhere to go. I am poor at explaining but done a quick doodle on sketchup to show what I mean. I have drawn the mouth square but marked how I would file it back to give the shavings somewhere to go. (Nothing is to scale) I should add that I think more expensive planes come like this but my basic Records did not

That is the type of filing I referred to a few posts earlier when I mentioned a panel plane that needed to be filed. The mouth is still the same size, but that type of relief was filed ( sloping away from the cap iron) for escapement room.

 

[D_W]

Thanks for that post and your link to BB's post, which has a link to an article on Woodcentral which clearly shows a board that HAS NOT been planed tear out free. There is still tear out and chatter plainly evident in the reversing stripe of grain. The board is not in acceptable condition for a prominent component of an article of fine furniture. There also looks to be a plane track that has caught the light in the upper quarter of the photo. The poor quality would be even more evident after applying a finish. The section of board in the photo is nowhere near being 'planed to a finish-ready condition.' Not really even close. If these results are supposed to represent the results that are being crowed about then it explains a lot. In the context of an article touting the benefits and abilities of a closely set cap iron why are we seeing a board in such a state?

Here: http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/tes ... _935.shtml

Compare and contrast the amount of beginning tear out and the end result above with that shown here:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/shavingaperture53.html

The results at Jeff Gorman's site are at least as good if not better and in an as difficult or more difficult species/board to plane.

Nice try Charlie, but wrong again. Those are Ellis Wallentine's pictures. I told Ellis I'd never leave that tearout in the wood and that was his first try making pictures by following the article instruction as he was editing it.

He disagreed and felt a reduction was as important as elimination, and in order to not be an argumentative prick, I let it go, but told Ellis that I'm sure I'd get grief for those pictures at some point. I could remove that tearout in two passes.

That's literally ellis's first try, and if you knew how to use a cap iron, you'd know that could be removed easily.

Ellis and Steve took pictures because I don't have the setup or lighting to take good ones.

Maybe you can try again tomorrow.

The other guy you keep linking to, I could duplicate his results in a tiny fraction of the time it took him to get them, and without resharpening.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I recall filing the mouths of planes that way about 20 years ago, having been shown the way through an article by David Charlesworth.

My earlier reply when this was raised was that the mouth still needed to be opened. Filing the mouth enables shaving to pass more easily, but the size of the mouth, itself, determines the thickness of the shaving that can be taken. One aim is to move away from fine smoothing cuts, to deeper cuts that still remain tearout-free.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

Thanks for that post and your link to BB's post, which has a link to an article on Woodcentral which clearly shows a board that HAS NOT been planed tear out free. There is still tear out and chatter plainly evident in the reversing stripe of grain. The board is not in acceptable condition for a prominent component of an article of fine furniture. There also looks to be a plane track that has caught the light in the upper quarter of the photo. The poor quality would be even more evident after applying a finish. The section of board in the photo is nowhere near being 'planed to a finish-ready condition.' Not really even close. If these results are supposed to represent the results that are being crowed about then it explains a lot. In the context of an article touting the benefits and abilities of a closely set cap iron why are we seeing a board in such a state?

Here: http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/tes ... _935.shtml

Compare and contrast the amount of beginning tear out and the end result above with that shown here:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/shavingaperture53.html

The results at Jeff Gorman's site are at least as good if not better and in an as difficult or more difficult species/board to plane.

Nice try Charlie, but wrong again. Those are Ellis Wallentine's pictures. I told Ellis I'd never leave that tearout in the wood and that was his first try making pictures by following the article instruction as he was editing it.

He disagreed and felt a reduction was as important as elimination, and in order to not be an argumentative prick, I let it go, but told Ellis that I'm sure I'd get grief for those pictures at some point. I could remove that tearout in two passes.

That's literally ellis's first try, and if you knew how to use a cap iron, you'd know that could be removed easily.

Ellis and Steve took pictures because I don't have the setup or lighting to take good ones.

Maybe you can try again tomorrow.

The other guy you keep linking to, I could duplicate his results in a tiny fraction of the time it took him to get them, and without resharpening.

What a load of baloney. 'Ellis made me do it.' You're always good for a laugh. I'll give you that. He couldn't have taken the picture he did, let you make two more passes and taken another one?

 

[DennisCA]

I recall filing the mouths of planes that way about 20 years ago, having been shown the way through an article by David Charlesworth.

My earlier reply when this was raised was that the mouth still needed to be opened. Filing the mouth enables shaving to pass more easily, but the size of the mouth, itself, determines the thickness of the shaving that can be taken. One aim is to move away from fine smoothing cuts, to deeper cuts that still remain tearout-free.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I suppose I'll have a look at the mouths of my planes then too.

 

[D_W]

Ellis is 300 miles away. I wrote that article sitting on the couch one day, not sitting in the local office of the magazine Ellis publishes.(?) Ask him about the pictures. It's not hard to find him unless you're afraid of what you'll find out.

 

[Trafalgar]

So we have the 'before' photo.

And afterward the collective, conventional, or whatever kind of wisdom was to stop, quite literally if you are to be believed, two plane passes before we could have had the final 'after' photo of the board completely planed and ready for the finish of choice?

"Finding" Ellis has nothing to do with this. He's welcome to corroborate this ridiculous tale if he wants to. "Hey, you all should have been there, David took two more passes and bada bing, bada boom the board was perfect." Except we didn't have time for one last photo. Nevermind the word count of the article itself and other accompanying graphics. We didn't have time for that last shot. Two plane passes away from the promised land.

 

[D_W]

So we have the 'before' photo.

And afterward the collective, conventional, or whatever kind of wisdom was to stop, quite literally if you are to be believed, two plane passes before we could have had the final 'after' photo of the board completely planed and ready for the finish of choice?

"Finding" Ellis has nothing to do with this. He's welcome to corroborate this ridiculous tale if he wants to. "Hey, you all should have been there, David took two more passes and bada bing, bada boom, the board was perfect." Except we didn't have time for one last photo. Nevermind the word count of the article itself and other accompanying graphics. We didn't have time for that last shot. Two plane passes away from the promised land.

Let me summarize for you, put your drink down for a second - I can practically smell the fumes through the screen:
* I wrote an article, Ellis offered that he would edit it (something I believe he's done professionally before).
* steve and ellis said they thought pictures would be helpful, above and beyond the first diagram (I guess everyone involved in the original topic did - including bill)
* I agreed that pictures would be helpful, but at the time had no video camera or good camera and lighting setup that can take pictures of things, especially like the reflective nature of the cap iron picture that steve took. The discussion didn't go long - ellis and steve said they'd take pictures. That whole exchange lasted about as long as this bullet point. I said that was good.
* Ellis added his pictures. I told ellis I'd like if he'd retake them with the tearout removed because it would invite criticism and it shouldn't be a problem to remove it. Ellis mentioned to me that he literally was using the cap iron for the first time as he was reading the article, and he felt that it was a good demonstration of the capability of the tool, in his words "showing reduction in tearout is useful, too, not just elimination". I would rather have a finished surface, but Ellis did several hours of editing and photo work for free. It would be discourteous to keep disagreeing with him just to appease an internet troll or two. Nobody got paid anything in this whole exchange. The major point of the article was to stop the ridiculous talk at the time of creating contraptions or shim setups or any number of other goofy things that the "blog experts" were saying that they were going to promote so a beginner could set a cap iron without relying on touch. You understand the principle of being agreeable to someone who is a gentleman (something Ellis is of the highest order) above pushing his buttons to appease a troll like you are being in this case? I don't expect you might, but i'll offer that up, anyway.
* all of the above happened long before the article hit the web (the discussion of the pictures, etc). I have never seen the piece of wood that's in that picture in person, or I would've finished it. It isn't difficult to understand that on Ellis's first attempt at setting the cap iron, something he hadn't done before, that he might not have gotten the setting right to remove all tearout.

Now, if you want to address reality in some way, shape or form - well, first go learn to use a cap iron. Something that it's obvious you don't know how to use because of the arguments you make. After that, if you ask Ellis the above (you still post on wood central, he's right there) and he disagrees with me, i'll entertain it further. Otherwise, I won't. I didn't write the article for trolls, and your suppositions are not close to what I've heard from anyone who has read the article and implied it (every response I've gotten has suggested complete elimination of tearout, no surprise).

 

[ED65]

So we have the 'before' photo.

And afterward the collective, conventional, or whatever kind of wisdom was to stop, quite literally if you are to be believed, two plane passes before we could have had the final 'after' photo of the board completely planed and ready for the finish of choice?

"Finding" Ellis has nothing to do with this. He's welcome to corroborate this ridiculous tale if he wants to. "Hey, you all should have been there, David took two more passes and bada bing, bada boom, the board was perfect." Except we didn't have time for one last photo. Nevermind the word count of the article itself and other accompanying graphics. We didn't have time for that last shot. Two plane passes away from the promised land.

Oh please. I don't know the personalitiies in this thread and the (obvious) long history of animosity so I consider myself reasonably impartial here, and it's clear to me at least that you're wilfully misintepreting what D_W is saying here.

He was not planing the board, that board was planed by someone else. That same someone who took the photos.
D_W could have sorted it out, because of his longer experience in using the cap iron, but he wasn't planing the board because he was 300 miles away.

That clear enough for you or are you capable of trying to skew even that?

 

[Trafalgar]

"Showing reduction in tearout is useful too..."

The whole thing is ridiculous and absurd on its face.

"Let me write the article, you plane the board we'll use in the photos (or get somebody else to do it or whatever) but for Pete's sake stop two passes before it's done."

Oy vey. Gullible doesn't even begin to describe this rapidly increasing excrement.

 

[D_W]

"Showing reduction in tearout is useful too..."

The whole thing is ridiculous and absurd on its face.

"Let me write the article, you plane the board we'll use in the photos (or get somebody else to do it or whatever) but for Pete's sake stop two passes before it's done."

Oy vey. Gullible doesn't even begin to describe this rapidly increasing excrement.

Ask Ellis, see what he says. I'm certainly not going to bother Ellis with your fantasies, but you're welcome to.

Or have another drink. Whatever you prefer, I guess.

 

[Trafalgar]

As many people who want to are welcome to confirm one of the most egregious examples of collective stupidity I've ever read on a woodworking forum.

 

[D_W]

As many people who want to are welcome to confirm one of the most egregious examples of collective stupidity I've ever read on a woodworking forum.

Glad to know your standards for a brief internet article are so high. You should go learn to use the cap iron so you don't frustrate yourself so much next time. You could've skipped it.

Your reasoning makes no sense - that it's such a huge deal that politeness and courtesy allowed something like those pictures to slide in an internet article. I guess the stuff in read is what's causing the inability to understand.

(I did speculate to Bill that you would troll the article, among others, but you got top billing. I'm surprised that it took this long, though).

 

[Jacob]

Nobody has commented on the traditional way of avoiding tear out, from the bad old days before precision sharpening/fiddling was invented (mid 80s or thereabouts?)
It was to take a thin narrowish shaving with a very sharp cambered blade.
I wonder how it compares.
Personally I reach for the ROS more often than not.

 

[D_W]

Nobody has commented on the traditional way of avoiding tear out, from the bad old days before precision sharpening/fiddling was invented (mid 80s or thereabouts?)
It was to take a thin narrowish shaving with a very sharp cambered blade.
I wonder how it compares.
Personally I reach for the ROS more often than not.

It works, but it's slower and requires more stopping to resharpen. An accidental over-depth cut can create a lot of additional work. I came from that direction to the cap iron, admittedly it wasn't until starting to dimension by hand that I was irritated with the limitations of some rather nice single iron wooden planes that I'd spent time tracking down (and making single iron smoothers, etc).

On small work, especially, very little difference between any method. On larger work, the cap iron will save you a lot of time and effort - only an iron with no damage to it and some clearance remaining is required (meaning you can plane a nice finished surface all the way until the iron runs out of clearance and refuses to stay in the cut).

My personal interest in all of the details in this is that I was looking to do manual dimensioning, but in the most economical way. I'd suspect the reason that the cap iron took over was economics in use (because it wasn't more economical to buy), which means less time and effort for the user.

Sanding is certainly fine if you can tolerate the dust or wish to do it in general.

If you've got very good machines, then all of this becomes very trivial, and the context of the commercial dominance of a double iron doesn't matter much (I'd imagine that's why so much of this stuff isn't practiced or discussed in much detail, and probably hasn't been practiced to it's potential by most for at least 100 years - even in my grandparents' furniture that was made locally in a one-man shop between 75 and 50 years ago, there isn't the slightest hint of anything but power tool use).

 

[Racers]

D_W you might want to use the friend/foe option, it works for me.


Pete

 

[D_W]

D_W you might want to use the friend/foe option, it works for me.


Pete

Thanks, Pete. I have it setup. I have an abhorrence for inaccurate accusations, but I should rely more on the foe option without overriding it. Your post is a reminder, and I'll do just that.

 

[Trafalgar]

As many people who want to are welcome to confirm one of the most egregious examples of collective stupidity I've ever read on a woodworking forum.

Glad to know your standards for a brief internet article are so high. You should go learn to use the cap iron so you don't frustrate yourself so much next time. You could've skipped it.

Your reasoning makes no sense - that it's such a huge deal that politeness and courtesy allowed something like those pictures to slide in an internet article. I guess the stuff in read is what's causing the inability to understand.

(I did speculate to Bill that you would troll the article, among others, but you got top billing. I'm surprised that it took this long, though).

Farcical beyond belief.

 

[D_W]

Nobody has commented on the traditional way of avoiding tear out, from the bad old days before precision sharpening/fiddling was invented (mid 80s or thereabouts?)
It was to take a thin narrowish shaving with a very sharp cambered blade.
I wonder how it compares.
Personally I reach for the ROS more often than not.

(by the way, I agree on the camber - cap iron or not, it's essential to finish a surface. The only other relatively impractical option is a straight iron and progressive shavings right to left or left to right to avoid leaving lines. I have heard people advocate that, but I can't imagine doing it).