who has veritas bevel up smoother or low angle smoother?

[Corneel]

Peter, just a question. Do you ever use the chipbreaker on difficult timbers to prevent tearout?

 

[Peter Sefton]

Do you offer the Stanley SW 4 Peter? It's a serious contender and a third of the price!

Hi Jacob
We don't currently carry any of the Stanley range although I am hearing good things on here about some of the planes. We do stock the latest versions of the Quanshengs, the Cliftons and the Veritas. We like to sell the tools we use and have confidence in from experience, and although the Stanley is probably very good and value for money, to carry another range in stock is just not possible at present. Maybe it needs to go on to do list for next year.
Cheers Peter

 

[Peter Sefton]

Peter, just a question. Do you ever use the chipbreaker on difficult timbers to prevent tearout?

Hi Corneel
I set my chip breaker to within .5 to .75 on fine work and possibly up to 1.5mm on heavy stock removal, also depending on how much camber I have on the blade for the job I am undertaking. The chip breaker will possibly offer some advantage on tricky timbers to prevent tearout, but I don't find it can compete with either a back bevel or a high angle on a BU plane.
Cheers Peter

 

[Corneel]

At .5 to .75 mm he is too far from the edge in a smoothing plane. That's more a setting for a jack plane. Try 0.2 mm or as close as you can get. You will be surprised how effective the chipbreaker can be.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Im after some thoughts on bevel up and low angle smoothers, yes i have both no 4 and 41/2 smoothers but i really fancy a veritas having got the low angle block plane and being so impressed with it......

Here's a fairly detailed and careful review (sadly un-dated) from Derek Cohen.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/toolreview ... other.html

BugBear

Hi BB

The article is now dated January 2006.

Here is a recent article I completed titled "Centre of Effort in a HandPlane". Read it at your peril. Read it if you are suffering insomnia. Or a masochist wishing for a headache. Or curious.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary ... Plane.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[bugbear]

Here is a recent article I completed titled "Centre of Effort in a HandPlane". Read it at your peril. Read it if you are suffering insomnia. Or a masochist wishing for a headache. Or curious.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary ... Plane.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

Seems simple enough. I don't see why C of G is relevant at all - the weight/mass of a plane is quite low compared to the forces acting on the handle and cutting edge.

reductio ad absurdum - in a full size plane of weight 10g, the C of G would be perfectly well defined, and absolutely irrelevant to the tool's use.

Bugbear

 

[Corneel]

I've discussed this before with Derek, but I am still at a loss what centre of effort exactly does in a plane.

Compare for example an LN #4 and a LN low angle smoother with a 33 degree honing angle. Do they feel different in use? They are both exactly the same length, handles have the same place and angle. They even weigh almost the same.

 

[Jacob]

Wherever (whatever) the "centre of effort" is, more weight means more effort. :shock:

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Compare for example an LN #4 and a LN low angle smoother with a 33 degree honing angle. Do they feel different in use? They are both exactly the same length, handles have the same place and angle. They even weigh almost the same.

Hi Kees

The BD and the BU feel very different in use.

The Bu will feel lighter and more agile than the BD. It will require less effort to push. The BD may feel more powerful as a greater degree of force is needed to more it forward. All these are in a sense illusions as they should produce identical surfaces.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Wherever (whatever) the "centre of effort" is, more weight means more effort. :shock:

Hi Jacob

That is essentially what I am saying. It is where the weight is directed that is important, and how the differing designs of a plane direct it there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[bugbear]

I've discussed this before with Derek, but I am still at a loss what centre of effort exactly does in a plane.

Compare for example an LN #4 and a LN low angle smoother with a 33 degree honing angle. Do they feel different in use? They are both exactly the same length, handles have the same place and angle. They even weigh almost the same.

Derek is battling with jargon here - I'm fairly sure I know what he's trying to say, but he's using terms that have a very specific meaning in their original context - out of context.

I think what Derek is talking about is the same as what saw buffs call "hang", which is really the relationship
between how the force is applied (in terms of location, magnitude and direction) and where the work is done.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Wherever (whatever) the "centre of effort" is, more weight means more effort. :shock:

Hi Jacob

That is essentially what I am saying. It is where the weight is directed that is important, and how the differing designs of a plane direct it there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Surely the user directs the force, whatever the plane. More mass means a slightly smaller vertical but a greater horizontal vector overall. But as we know, in use we direct force as we choose - e.g. towards the front at the start of a cut, and at the back near the end.

..... The BD may feel more powerful as a greater degree of force is needed to more it forward......

Why would it need more force?

 

[bugbear]

Surely the user directs the force, whatever the plane.

Yes, but the plane design is a factor.

If you consider hypothetical planes with very deep bodies (so the handle is very high) and very long bodies (so the handle is very far back), it is obvious that in the former case directing force horizontally becomes difficult, and in the latter directing force vertically becomes difficult.

With the principle understood, it is then easy to apply it to less extreme (and more realistic) cases. One design option clearlt driven by such consideration is the wooden razee jack.

BugBear

 

[Peter Sefton]

At .5 to .75 mm he is too far from the edge in a smoothing plane. That's more a setting for a jack plane. Try 0.2 mm or as close as you can get. You will be surprised how effective the chipbreaker can be.

As I said it depends on how much camber you have on the blade, if I was getting students to try setting to within .2mm I would need an extra Tormek for all the damaged blades, but it sounds like a good idea if it works for you.

 

[Jacob]

Surely the user directs the force, whatever the plane.

Yes, but the plane design is a factor.

If you consider hypothetical planes with very deep bodies (so the handle is very high)

There aren't any planes like that are there?

and very long bodies ..... latter directing force vertically becomes difficult.

Easy - one hand each end and you can direct forces how you like

With the principle understood,

What principle? "Planes with handles in the wrong place"?

it is then easy to apply it to less extreme (and more realistic) cases. One design option clearlt driven by such consideration is the wooden razee jack.

I always understood the Razee to be school model for smaller people.
Armchair theorising is a bottomless pit!

 

[Corneel]

Let me try some armchair theorising.

The Lie Nielsen #4 benchplane is a bevel down plane. As much a BD as a BD can be. Let's move the chipbreaker up a bit so it doesn't interfere with our theories. Now we have a very simple design. More or less single blade, 45 degree frog, bevel down. The cutting angle is 45 degrees too.

Now we get us some of these modern industrial super glues and glue the blade to the frog so it becomes one. Because of the inclined bedding of the frog we can adjust the depth setting of the blade with the frog adjusting screw. There might be one or two practical limitations to such a setup, but in theory this is a workable situation. We can even put the chipbreaker and levercap back on, allthough they don't have a function anymore, they won't harm either.

What we have created is a low angle, bevel up plane. The bevel in this creature is very long of course, and the face of the blade is a bit irregular, but in appearance and function it is exactly the same as the Lie Nielsen BU smoothing plane.



Of course, with just a few drops of glue, we didn't actually change anything at all. Which means that BU or BD doesn't change the plane, as long as the cutting angle is the same.

We have allready seen that the two planes, the LN #4 and the LN BU smoothing plane are very similar. Same length, same handles, same handle position, almost the same weight. And from the armchair theorising above we can conclude that the bevel up or bevel down configuration doesn't matter either. The only thing obviously different is the centre of gravity. And our own brain, which sees a different plane, thus expects a different behaviour.

I still don't know what makes a BU feel different then a BD. I wonder now if you would also feel a difference if you would use the planes blindfolded. Derek, you are the psychologist here, how about a test with some innocent volunteers?

Ps: Should have made the comparison with the #5 and the BU jack. They are even more similar. The BU smoother has a slightly more upright handle.

 

[Corneel]

At .5 to .75 mm he is too far from the edge in a smoothing plane. That's more a setting for a jack plane. Try 0.2 mm or as close as you can get. You will be surprised how effective the chipbreaker can be.

As I said it depends on how much camber you have on the blade, if I was getting students to try setting to within .2mm I would need an extra Tormek for all the damaged blades, but it sounds like a good idea if it works for you.

Hai Peter,

I sharpen freehand and have no problem to keep the edge quite straight. A little bit of camber doesn't harm though. In the cambered corners, the shaving thickness is less too. In my foreplane the chipbreaker is even projecting a bit beyond the edge in the corners.

 

[Jacob]

.....
I still don't know what makes a BU feel different then a BD. I wonder now if you would also feel a difference if you would use the planes blindfolded. Derek, you are the psychologist here, how about a test with some innocent volunteers?

But in any case it doesn't matter a jot what it feels like - what matters is the quality of the planed surface, how quickly you can get what you want, how convenient the plane in terms of fiddling time etc etc.
On that basis I thought there wasn't anything to chose between LV LA smoother, Clifton 4, Stanley SW 4. They are all flawed but the Stanley is a third of the price!!

If any plane makers are out there IMHO the perfect plane would be the Stanley SW4, but with:
a conventional Bailey pattern adjustment,
a two piece cap iron,
the mouth set screw of the LV plane,
less weight.

 

[bugbear]

Surely the user directs the force, whatever the plane.

Yes, but the plane design is a factor.

If you consider hypothetical planes with very deep bodies (so the handle is very high)

There aren't any planes like that are there?

link to meaning of hypothetical

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

There are an infinite number of hypothetical planes - are you going to consider them all?
Might be simpler to stick to real ones.