Where did the knowledge about the capiron get lost?

[Trafalgar]

This is more about setting the matter right from those who would rewrite history and therefore not give credit where it's due, though admittedly from their own stubborn ignorance as much as anything else. They refuse to say that it was there all the time, which of course it was.

Credit belongs to British writers, craftsmen, and teachers. Period.

 

[Trafalgar]

If the books were published after 1975, probably not! Wearing being a notable exception.

Hi Charles. I would bring that date back to pre 1960.

Probably so, except for Wearing and the special printing of Planecraft underwritten by Woodcraft in 1982. I'm pretty sure there are also some articles dealing with all of this in the early years of Fine Woodworking magazine.

There are actually Woodcraft underwritten impressions of the book dated as late as 1988 on Amazon. Woodcraft apparently printed these for years. My Woodcraft sponsored impression is dated 1972. They may have had these printed for fifteen years or more. Very telling.

 

[AndyT]

Does anyone know of an old text (other than Planecraft) where an
actual reproducible distance is given for the capiron/blade-edge gap required
to influence tear-out?

Given that most old texts don't seem keen on any units smaller
than an eighth, it may simply be that "close" did not mean,
to the modern reader, to imply distances that we know need
to measure in thou's, and hence the knowledge was lost in translation.

BugBear

I'm sure we've been here before, but here are a few from earlier than Hayward.

These are the first four I looked in - they don't all agree or quantify the measurement in the same way, (not all books are good!) but the general drift is there.

Holtzapffel, Turning and Mechanical Manipulation Volume 2, 1847 p 497:

The cutting iron having been sharpened, the top-iro is screwed fast at the required distance from the edge, say for coarse works one-sixteenth, and for fine work, one fortieth or fiftieth of an inch.

James Lukin, Carpentry and Joinery for Amateurs, 1879 p25:

The position of the break iron is of great importance. The nearer its edge is to that of the cutter, the harder will be the work of planing, and the thinner the shaving, supposing the plane to be set "fine," ie with its edge projecting but slightly beyond the sole. Hence it is usual to set the the break-iron one-sixteenth from the edge for the first roughing-down process, and then to re-sharpen the blade and set the break iron but very slightly above the other, and thus to finish the work.

Francis Young, Every Man His Own Mechanic, 1882, p 166:

Thus when the jack-plane is required for heavy work, that is to say, for hacking down a rough and uneven surface, the edge of the break-iron should be about 1/8 inch from the edge of the cutter, but for finer work it should not be more than 1/20 inch from the latter; and in the smoothing-plane the distance between the edges of the two irons should be less than this - indeed so slight as to be perceptible but nothing more. The higher the break-iron, the easier the plane will be found to work, and the lower it is the heavier the plane will work, but the cut will be cleaner.

William Fairham, Woodwork tools and How to Use Them, 1922, p97

For fine work the cap iron of the jack plane should stand back from the edge of the cutting blade almost 1/16 in.; whereas for rough planing, the distance may be increased to almost 1/8 in. The smoothing plane and the trying plane require the cap iron setting back from the cutting edge about 1/32 in. Steel smoothing planes will require a finer set than 1/32 in. when used on hardwood. No hard and fast rule can be given for setting the back iron; it is one of the points that will come to the worker by experiment and experience, and the above measurements are given as a general guide.

 

[Trafalgar]

Without doubt.

Hayward and other sources (Audel's in the US) and Planecraft kept this going into the mid-20th century well after even hobbyists were predominantly using power equipment.

 

[AndyT]

I'm pretty sure there are also some articles dealing with all of this in the early years of Fine Woodworking magazine.

FWW no 1 1975 had an article on Hand Planes by Timothy Ellsworth which recommended "Planecraft" as a good source of guidance on this and other matters. It suggested 1/64" for "very fine shavings on finish work and hard to plane woods."

 

[Trafalgar]

There you go.

Woodcraft apparently continued to have Planecraft printed through the year 1988 based on dates I'm seeing on Amazon. They weren't doing this because the book wasn't selling!

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Charles, this is such a ...

Dave (DW) made this point early on.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

I'm touched you took the time to find such a neat image.

 

[D_W]

This Charles is much more recognizable.

Since nobody else did it, I searched through the old posts on this site and I looked for anyone who commented on "chipbreaker, tearout" or "cap iron, tearout". There was a single person who suggested using the cap iron to eliminate tearout, a user who goes by the handle IVAN. Ivan's second post is a situation where he was actually using it.

Bravo, Ivan.

Nobody responded a peep to what he said, even when people disagreed with his assessment that the cap iron can provide a steepened angle like a scraper, but with a more favorable surface quality (which is exactly correct). Again, not getting into the argument that a customer usually has no clue what's sanded or planed, I worked for 3 summers in a cabinet factory with 500 employees and I certainly never saw anything other than wax sticks and shellac sticks to fix problems on doors and face frames, and we made 3000-3500 cabinets a week and never had trouble selling any for issues outside of *color matching*.

Ivan posted accurately about using the cap iron once in 2007 and once in 2009. In a world of such common knowledge, i'm surprised that someone didn't agree with him when others were disagreeing. I guess it was too subtle, and it just went by, even though it's buried in the research results between gobs of posts talking about chipbreakers stabilizing blades and needing heavier and thicker blades or heavier cap irons.

It seems much easier to point out you heard it or read it before (as I suggested to Bill we'd hear), but the actually suggestion of *doing* it with an accurate bit of instruction doesn't appear on this site that I can see except from above. that's too bad. It probably would've saved a lot of people a lot of money that they could've spent on wood and finish supplies.

 

[ED65]

Some related reading I just unearthed while looking for a particular post referenced elsewhere.

Thread from here from 2005:
What's all this bevel up stuff anyway?

More from Chris Schwarz, July 2012:
More Experiments with Chipbreakers

 

[D_W]

Some related reading I just unearthed while looking for a particular post referenced elsewhere.

Thread from here from 2005:
What's all this bevel up stuff anyway?

More from Chris Schwarz, July 2012:
More Experiments with Chipbreakers

Thanks for those links. The first one has a bit of incidental contact in it. I read through it all, and it appears that there is some favor for heavy shavings in it. If I missed others, let me know.

The second one was post forum discussion, which occurred in about march/april 2012.

It did result in me (after writing an article, which I'm not claiming by any means to be something spectacular, just an article to describe how to functionally set the cap) getting PMs from people offering to put me in contact with Chris Schwarz so that I could "understand it better" because "he could probably help".

Ivan's description in 2009, however, was perfection.

I vaguely recall when I first got into this hobby, Larry, Derek and Warren (on another forum) in constant roundabouts about various things. I believe that was 2005 or 2006. Larry argued with such vigor I figured he must be correct (the discussions were much more heated than this thread). Except since starting to make double iron wooden planes, I've proved his assertions incorrect (which will surprise nobody, but again, in the states, there is not much out there - especially about making a good double iron plane).

It was a first taste into problems that you didn't know were problems until someone else said they were (e.g., the "long wear bevel" that's so hard to remove on a bevel up plane - one that's not that hard in practice to remove, and I was using planes of that type back then).

The regret I have in discussions of this type (where there are obviously knowledgeable folks on here) is that when they get heated, we actually learn things because people who wouldn't otherwise post are motivated to do so out of anger. It is like the cap iron question I have here, in ten years of posts on this site, we have one conclusive mention of the cap iron before 2012 (that is accurate) in friendly discussion, and then scads of recent posts because people have their hackles raised.

I am one half drawing heat like a heel wrestler on purpose, but one half also honest about being a bit annoyed that nobody did much to accurately describe a very useful (and free) thing that makes a stock plane work superbly. Every time I see suggestions now about "improvements" over a stanley plane, something that the makers and retailers of the ECE planes readily declare - that they've overcome all of the shortcomings of a stanley plane - when functionally they have come up short of lord stanley in actual use. Well, the improvement is in user function, not plane function, and it didn't get enough press. Regardless of how many people can point to texts that said something about it beforehand. Warren gets the award for pointing to the earliest texts - something he has been doing for a decade.

Until the next fun discussion comes up - thanks for humoring me and others on this one.

 

[Trafalgar]

You don't seem to get that the appearance of this issue on the internet is your metric but not everybody else's.

Not sure what this isn't registering but I'm reminded of the Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra sketch on Saturday Night Live.... "Not gettin' through..." Chris Rock's sketch about books being kryptonite also comes to mind.

Patronize your local library. Please.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Some related reading I just unearthed while looking for a particular post referenced elsewhere.

Thread from here from 2005:
What's all this bevel up stuff anyway?

More from Chris Schwarz, July 2012:
More Experiments with Chipbreakers

Interesting links.

The first one is a long lecture (boring) by Alf and myself about the virtues of BU planes (well, it was 2005, and BU planes were taking off). Near the end, the chipbreaker makes an appearance and "ydb1md" suggests that he finds it helps the performance. At the end of the thread - blow me over - I am recounting the Kato research (but getting the name wrong) and stating that the chipbreaker makes a difference if placed about 0.5mm from the edge of the blade! This is 2005, 7 years before we returned to the subject. I recall not taking this recommendation too seriously - not because it did not work - but because it seemed so impossible a setting to achieve. How attitudes have changed.

The second link illustrates how easily it is to ascribe technique to those who reinvent the wheel. "Deneb of Lie-Nielsen has a good theory", reports Chris Schwarz in 2012. "He thinks that a closely set breaker “fools” the wood into thinking that it is being planed by a high-angle plane". Deneb must have been reading the posts on Wood Central forum.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[PAC1]

I know I have mentioned it before but Ernest Joyce The Technique of Furniture Making published between 1970 and 1995 (Revised by Alan Peters from 1987). Talking about the setting of the cap iron to deal with fine cuts or difficult timber at page 105 "Practical experience will give the best setting of the cap iron, which may vary from a hairs's breadth for the final surfacing of difficult timbers to 1/16th in (1.5mm) for the first rough levelling".
Not sure it can get any clearer than that. Unless you want to argue that a hair's breadth varies from person to person.

 

[AndyT]

Nice one PAC - I don't have many modern books but I should have thought of looking in there!

 

[D_W]

I know I have mentioned it before but Ernest Joyce The Technique of Furniture Making published between 1970 and 1995 (Revised by Alan Peters from 1987). Talking about the setting of the cap iron to deal with fine cuts or difficult timber at page 105 "Practical experience will give the best setting of the cap iron, which may vary from a hairs's breadth for the final surfacing of difficult timbers to 1/16th in (1.5mm) for the first rough levelling".
Not sure it can get any clearer than that. Unless you want to argue that a hair's breadth varies from person to person.

Certainly there is post evidence of you suggesting this to someone to plane a difficult surface, right? That's the link that's missing here. I still see only one precise suggestion of actual use of the cap iron by someone on here (and suggesting it to others) and that is by Ivan, who apparently doesn't post any longer.

There are many mentions after 2012, of course. Kees was the first I could find on here, in May. But Kees was talking about it everywhere else. I always say I can't remember Kees' motivation, and I'm sure he responds and says what it was, but I can't ever remember it. Sorry Kees! I know he certainly didn't read it from me.

 

[bugbear]

Nice one PAC - I don't have many modern books but I should have thought of looking in there!

I think viewing "close", "very close","as close as possible", "hair's breadth" and "gnats rear" as good, helpful descriptions is involving quite a lot of hindsight, like reveling in the excellence of a crossword clue when someone's told you the answer.

It's disappointing that none of the "old guys" use the most obvious description of all - the cap
iron distance should be of the order of the thickness of the shaving you're taking.

Look ma - no numbers!

Mind you, it looks like "some one" noticed the Cato/Kato video, back in 2002.

http://www.swingleydev.com/ot/get/111751/single/

And here, from 1996 (!!)

http://swingleydev.com/ot/get/7284/single/

The rule of thumb that i was taught
years ago was to set the lever [obvious typo] as far from the edge as the thickness of
thickest shaving you are planning on taking. so short of my scrub plane
(which lacks a chipbreaker anyway), the furthest back i ever set a
chipbreaker is about 1/16th of an inch.


In 2006:
http://swingleydev.com/ot/get/156493/single/

OH! Some really cool info can be accessed about chip
breakers through Brent Beach's site - in his links go
to (I think) Steve Elliots pages... really cool stuff
about cap irons as chipbreakers! Go figure! To sum it
up - 50 to 80 [degree] bevels on cap irons set very close to
the edge (around .005" I think) produce excellent
surfaces with no throat.


And with the help of the Wayback machine, here we are, planing like it's 2006;

https://web.archive.org/web/20060828095 ... aking.html

I note that David Weaver's 2012 article on woodcentral acknowledges Steve Elliott.

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

BugBear

 

[PAC1]

I know I have mentioned it before but Ernest Joyce The Technique of Furniture Making published between 1970 and 1995 (Revised by Alan Peters from 1987). Talking about the setting of the cap iron to deal with fine cuts or difficult timber at page 105 "Practical experience will give the best setting of the cap iron, which may vary from a hairs's breadth for the final surfacing of difficult timbers to 1/16th in (1.5mm) for the first rough levelling".
Not sure it can get any clearer than that. Unless you want to argue that a hair's breadth varies from person to person.

Certainly there is post evidence of you suggesting this to someone to plane a difficult surface, right? That's the link that's missing here. I still see only one precise suggestion of actual use of the cap iron by someone on here (and suggesting it to others) and that is by Ivan, who apparently doesn't post any longer.

There are many mentions after 2012, of course. Kees was the first I could find on here, in May. But Kees was talking about it everywhere else. I always say I can't remember Kees' motivation, and I'm sure he responds and says what it was, but I can't ever remember it. Sorry Kees! I know he certainly didn't read it from me.

nope because I do not post too much on here or any forum. I kept out of this debate until this thread was started and thought it was time to say something.

 

[PAC1]

Nice one PAC - I don't have many modern books but I should have thought of looking in there!

I think viewing "close", "very close","as close as possible", "hair's breadth" and "gnats rear" as good, helpful descriptions is involving quite a lot of hindsight, like reveling in the excellence of a crossword clue when someone's told you the answer.

It's disappointing that none of the "old guys" use the most obvious description of all - the cap
iron distance should be of the order of the thickness of the shaving you're taking.

Look ma - no numbers!

Mind you, it looks like "some one" noticed the Cato/Kato video, back in 2002.

http://www.swingleydev.com/ot/get/111751/single/

BugBear

Bugbear there is no magic number the quote I used starts with "Practical experience will give the best setting of the cap iron". If you are still confused it means trial and error or suck it and see or just refine the distance until you get success.

 

[D_W]

I know I have mentioned it before but Ernest Joyce The Technique of Furniture Making published between 1970 and 1995 (Revised by Alan Peters from 1987). Talking about the setting of the cap iron to deal with fine cuts or difficult timber at page 105 "Practical experience will give the best setting of the cap iron, which may vary from a hairs's breadth for the final surfacing of difficult timbers to 1/16th in (1.5mm) for the first rough levelling".
Not sure it can get any clearer than that. Unless you want to argue that a hair's breadth varies from person to person.

Certainly there is post evidence of you suggesting this to someone to plane a difficult surface, right? That's the link that's missing here. I still see only one precise suggestion of actual use of the cap iron by someone on here (and suggesting it to others) and that is by Ivan, who apparently doesn't post any longer.

There are many mentions after 2012, of course. Kees was the first I could find on here, in May. But Kees was talking about it everywhere else. I always say I can't remember Kees' motivation, and I'm sure he responds and says what it was, but I can't ever remember it. Sorry Kees! I know he certainly didn't read it from me.

nope because I do not post too much on here or any forum. I kept out of this debate until this thread was started and thought it was time to say something.

Well, you may be in the majority, because other than Ivan, it doesn't appear that anyone actually suggested it accurately. Perhaps that's the case with many things, that requests go by repeatedly and nobody answers with something they know because they don't feel like it's worth the trouble to help.

Admittedly, when someone asks the age old question now of "I have tearout on ____ with my plane, what should I buy", I don't answer that either, except from time to time I will tell someone to google setting a cap iron. most of the time, it doesn't amount to anything, but once in a while I get a nice PM back from someone who took the time to go out and read the information that's out there and they're very happy they don't have to buy anything.

I kind of know the answer to the question I'm asking, David C. is a sharp guy and for him to say what he said on SMC in 2012 makes it clear that it was never provided as advice here in any quantity or with any regularity. Perhaps because in the context of working wood that comes off of a machine, there's really not much left to do and any plane will generally do the work fine unless the machine has left damage.

I don't know (because I don't follow much machinery stuff) how this forum gets on with modern stuff, but a friend of mine who is a hobbyist with less output than me has two spiral headed machines, including a DC 580 planer (which is a substantial piece of gear for a hobbyist who rarely uses their tools), and there is not much to do with the wood that comes off if it is desired dimension. The wood shines already.

There has been a small sect of mostly or only hand tool users over the past decade, though, and advice like I'm digging for just really wasn't provided very often. Not nearly as often as thicker blade / sharper iron / modern replacement / bevel up / scraper plane, etc.