Where did the knowledge about the capiron get lost?
- Thread starter Corneel
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
David C
In Memorium
I have a piece of English Yew, that has always been very challenging.
It works well with an increased effective pitch of 75 degrees.
Planed it today with ultra close chipbreaker and got very good result.. I have no means of measuring this set up but the C/B edge was probably between 0.004" and 0.006" from the cutting edge.
During my career, I paid attention to published works about plane tuning and avoiding tearout. Those were principally;
Flat sole.
Sharp blade. (Waterstones).
Fine mouth. (I got down to 0.004").
Fine shaving. (No problem with 0.0005")
Close set C/B. I thought that 0.3 mm was close! Always scared of going over the edge and blunting the blade before work began!
Raised effective pitch.
Scraper plane.
Now even this set up caused significant tearout on extra difficult timbers. The Yew is a perfect example.
So I resorted to increased effective pitch. i.e. a tiny backbevel on a standard bench plane blade.
This works very well on hard woods as does the scraper plane.
No where did I see the "very close capiron" quantified until the Kato Kawai video.
I did not work in a large shop with old cabinetmakers who might have told me. Hoadley did not mention it and I have not had time to look up every book and article that lurks in the depths of my bookcases.
I am quite sure that this knowledge was not readily available or widely published in the 70s. The people who have subsequently told us that they knew this all the time and had been using it for years, failed badly on the educational front.
The ultra close setting, as I call it, has been one of the greatest revelations of my career! And I think it's great.
best wishes,
David Charlesworth
It works well with an increased effective pitch of 75 degrees.
Planed it today with ultra close chipbreaker and got very good result.. I have no means of measuring this set up but the C/B edge was probably between 0.004" and 0.006" from the cutting edge.
During my career, I paid attention to published works about plane tuning and avoiding tearout. Those were principally;
Flat sole.
Sharp blade. (Waterstones).
Fine mouth. (I got down to 0.004").
Fine shaving. (No problem with 0.0005")
Close set C/B. I thought that 0.3 mm was close! Always scared of going over the edge and blunting the blade before work began!
Raised effective pitch.
Scraper plane.
Now even this set up caused significant tearout on extra difficult timbers. The Yew is a perfect example.
So I resorted to increased effective pitch. i.e. a tiny backbevel on a standard bench plane blade.
This works very well on hard woods as does the scraper plane.
No where did I see the "very close capiron" quantified until the Kato Kawai video.
I did not work in a large shop with old cabinetmakers who might have told me. Hoadley did not mention it and I have not had time to look up every book and article that lurks in the depths of my bookcases.
I am quite sure that this knowledge was not readily available or widely published in the 70s. The people who have subsequently told us that they knew this all the time and had been using it for years, failed badly on the educational front.
The ultra close setting, as I call it, has been one of the greatest revelations of my career! And I think it's great.
best wishes,
David Charlesworth
Beau":189pa5vz said:
Good deal. it's a one or the other sort of thing. Both together will make for no escapement for chips, I missed asking about that on the first go around.
My favorite setting on a stanley plane is to have the flog set flush with the back casting. That's nice because a stanley plane doesn't usually have that big of a mouth above and beyond that, but plenty big to allow clearance.
I have had planes that I thought were cut with too big of a mouth, even though I probably tolerate that more than most (because of the fandom of the cap iron). If it gets so big that the iron catches on things when you don't want it to, that's a problem.
A very close mouth can limit catastrophic tearout, but it has to be tiny to eliminate it completely. This is very evident with something like a japanese plane with a tight (but not tight enough) mouth, because there will be tiny little tearouts among a very bright and reflective surface.
Also, when we talk about mouth size, I had made a panel plane common pitch (before understanding the cap iron) and set mouth size at .01" after making a smoother that worked well with a 55 degree pitch and a mouth set at .003-.004" (these were infill planes, so the bed and mouth were fixed). I was disappointed to find that even a hundredth of an inch did not control tearout at a finish level very well. It prevented catastrophe, but it would not finish a surface. The cap iron on the first plane works much better than the tight mouth, but I had to file the mouth a little bit to not create a jam.
Good luck (though you won't really need any), it's something that's definitely worth mastering.
thikone
Established Member
I was in the similar position, learning from Internet and such. Even though it is 2015 now, I still was caught by the trap of bevel up planes and no chip breaker hype that was left after decade of blogs and videos left by amateurs, mostly. I'm getting to the bottom of it, but only after spending money on Veritas trio bevel up planes. So, old posts and reviews do still mislead beginners like me. Could we just delete that part of Internet? 
I find that most great woodworkers just luck scientific education and mostly have some feelings based on extensive experience and not able to formulate it in reproducible manner. Nobody did such study as that Japanese professor before, right? So, we have to reinvent things and redeclare them the new way. And others must have the courage to acknowledge that
As a side note I also find that learning woodworking is like learning martial arts. Training and watching master for 10 years to be worthy of anything. See the details, practice, that allows to see more details and so on. Posture, body movements and rithm are also important. Like very much the English Woodworker videos for that. That is how experience of several generations looks like, I think.
Andrey Kharitonkin
I find that most great woodworkers just luck scientific education and mostly have some feelings based on extensive experience and not able to formulate it in reproducible manner. Nobody did such study as that Japanese professor before, right? So, we have to reinvent things and redeclare them the new way. And others must have the courage to acknowledge that
As a side note I also find that learning woodworking is like learning martial arts. Training and watching master for 10 years to be worthy of anything. See the details, practice, that allows to see more details and so on. Posture, body movements and rithm are also important. Like very much the English Woodworker videos for that. That is how experience of several generations looks like, I think.
Andrey Kharitonkin
bugbear
Established Member
David C":t4sn67t9 said:
My emphasis.
I think many people had seen the word "close" in old texts.
I think very few people (certainly including myself, and David C) realised just how small "close" meant.
BugBear
David C":cdqj3u7e said:
Perhaps, but we certainly did know about it. Not sure that anyone 'failed' on the educational front. If someone like myself was aware of it (self taught) perhaps you failed to take heed.
bugbear
Established Member
MIGNAL":19qvw6jw said:
Did you discover (re-invent) it, or did you read it?
I'm not sniping, I'm genuinely curious
BugBear
MIGNAL":3or8oq4b said:
That wasn't ever suggested. What was suggested was that the number of people who "knew about it" before 2012 seems to have increased since 2012.
Even on the US side of the discussion, I don't remember Warren Mickley ever *not* jabbing people with it, and that was eons before 2012.
The other thing that always makes me squint is when someone says they know how to use the cap iron properly and they advocate continuing to set the mouth finely (which is a nuisance). I'm not accusing you of that, just an observation that I can't remember who is responsible for it - quite often in the last nearly 4 years, I've seen someone say they are competent with a double iron, but they prefer a scraper or a high angle plane. I could only understand that being the case if someone worked only very hard wood.
Tony Zaffuto
Established Member
I have to admit that that it was in this thread that it dawned on me to not be anal with a closely set mouth! I honestly cannot recall that showing in print and if anything, it has always been to set the frog close!
So I was taught to use a cap iron a a beginning woodworker. I just wasn't a very good student. Sometimes it worked for me, sometimes not. As a result I was willing to listen to the bevel up/ high angle stuff as being the way to go. I knew that the idea that the chipbreaker was just to stiffen/ carry the adjuster was wrong, but I still struggled with tearout. So for me, Kato and the subsequent discussions have been very helpful.
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.
So that's my level of knowledge about hand planes
I've always just set the frog so the back of the plane iron would lie supported evenly against the plane and frog the whole way.
So that's my level of knowledge about hand planes
I've always just set the frog so the back of the plane iron would lie supported evenly against the plane and frog the whole way.
condeesteso
Established Member
Some small points if I may.
I agree with Bugbear - there's close, but then there is a few thou close. Close was knowledge to be had if you looked, but Kato-close is different and seeing it helps believe it.
I was accused of being harsh to Chris Schwarz and Tom LN - harshness was not the intention, but I absolutely stand by what I said. (Off to one side, those 2 have done a huge amount to advance the ownership and sometimes the use of fine hand tools, particularly planes - there's an observation tucked away in there).
If it is agreed that this particular piece of knowledge became lost to many (or overlooked, disregarded, whatever), then this happened well before the internet - that is proven here with (for example) CS's writings in the 90s, and LN cap irons that could not be closed right down, etc.
The knowledge in question became 'lost' within the modern history of the production handplane (say from the 70s). Nothing at all was happening until LN bought some old tooling and went back to his dad's farm to try making planes. That was the 80s. He was quite quick to make the best production handplanes in the World. And Popular Woodworking (just down the road really) was equally quick to get excited and propogate their own enthusiasm. The fact that CS was then editor at the World's most influential magazine was just good karma.
If all that is right, everything else follows. LN pioneered the enthusiasm for bevel-up planes, the 'new' wonder capable of doing everything. Premium competitors followed but the new market maker was Lie Nielsen and his principle voice was Chris S (around the early/mid 90's by now). Others followed of course, but that is all. I'll mention Clifton because they ploughed thier own furrow, but they were marketed so very badly that they were lost in the shadows.
I agree with a lot of what is said about the internet, but I remember exactly where I was standing and who with, when I was first shown a beta of Google. It took 7 or 8 more years before magazines began to use the internet, forums emerged etc.
Whatever the answer to the OP question is (if there is an actual answer), it is not the internet.
The very best thing I think is, stop reading and get out there. Be prepared to spend longer on prepping your cap iron than ever before (probably much longer), don't measure anything, don't mess with tight mouths, get planing and keep an open mind.
I agree with Bugbear - there's close, but then there is a few thou close. Close was knowledge to be had if you looked, but Kato-close is different and seeing it helps believe it.
I was accused of being harsh to Chris Schwarz and Tom LN - harshness was not the intention, but I absolutely stand by what I said. (Off to one side, those 2 have done a huge amount to advance the ownership and sometimes the use of fine hand tools, particularly planes - there's an observation tucked away in there).
If it is agreed that this particular piece of knowledge became lost to many (or overlooked, disregarded, whatever), then this happened well before the internet - that is proven here with (for example) CS's writings in the 90s, and LN cap irons that could not be closed right down, etc.
The knowledge in question became 'lost' within the modern history of the production handplane (say from the 70s). Nothing at all was happening until LN bought some old tooling and went back to his dad's farm to try making planes. That was the 80s. He was quite quick to make the best production handplanes in the World. And Popular Woodworking (just down the road really) was equally quick to get excited and propogate their own enthusiasm. The fact that CS was then editor at the World's most influential magazine was just good karma.
If all that is right, everything else follows. LN pioneered the enthusiasm for bevel-up planes, the 'new' wonder capable of doing everything. Premium competitors followed but the new market maker was Lie Nielsen and his principle voice was Chris S (around the early/mid 90's by now). Others followed of course, but that is all. I'll mention Clifton because they ploughed thier own furrow, but they were marketed so very badly that they were lost in the shadows.
I agree with a lot of what is said about the internet, but I remember exactly where I was standing and who with, when I was first shown a beta of Google. It took 7 or 8 more years before magazines began to use the internet, forums emerged etc.
Whatever the answer to the OP question is (if there is an actual answer), it is not the internet.
The very best thing I think is, stop reading and get out there. Be prepared to spend longer on prepping your cap iron than ever before (probably much longer), don't measure anything, don't mess with tight mouths, get planing and keep an open mind.
DennisCA":wi6to1n2 said:
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
Attachments
Ah yes there was that too, it was all a bit confusing as you both where using terminology that didn't make sense to me at the time, now that I've researched it a bit it's all much clearer. I didn't have time last night to even look at my planes, home alone with my twin 2 year old boys while their mother was attending some meetup, kept me pretty busy.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Where did the knowledge about the capiron get lost?
Not so much lost, more discovered, during the development of the new sharpening with its inherent need for precise flat surfaces and straight edges (jigs don't work well without them). The new precision made possible a new level of tool fiddling.
Previously almost all sharpening was freehand on less than perfect stones and fine adjusting (as per BBs thread here for instance post1015435.html#p1015435) was not an option as all blades would be slightly cambered.
Not so much lost, more discovered, during the development of the new sharpening with its inherent need for precise flat surfaces and straight edges (jigs don't work well without them). The new precision made possible a new level of tool fiddling.
Previously almost all sharpening was freehand on less than perfect stones and fine adjusting (as per BBs thread here for instance post1015435.html#p1015435) was not an option as all blades would be slightly cambered.
