who has veritas bevel up smoother or low angle smoother?

[bugbear]

There are an infinite number of hypothetical planes - are you going to consider them all?

Oh for crying out loud, are you being deliberately obtuse just to cause an argument?

The hypothetical planes were carefully chosen to illustrate the mattter at hand.

BugBear

 

[nev]

sharpening-and-other-fun-things-t75308.html

 

[J_SAMa]

Deja vu?
This came up a while ago...
Again i think the only advantage that a BU plane has is it rides much lower and therefore better for one-handed block planes (easier to hold than a bevel down).
Despite what a lot of people have been saying LA planes aren't better shooting planes than BD's. Bedding angle 13+ bevel 30= 43 degrees. 2 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch, why bother?

+1 on Kees' blindfolded test idea

 

[MIGNAL]

I don't think the blindfold idea will work. On a bevel down Plane it's easy to feel the frog/blade with the back of the fingers. Even on a No.6 my index finger touches the lateral lever and my hands are relatively small.
Maybe that's why the Razee developed the step at the back, to give more clearance from the top of the blade by dropping the position of the hand. Just a thought.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Deja vu?
This came up a while ago...
Again i think the only advantage that a BU plane has is it rides much lower and therefore better for one-handed block planes (easier to hold than a bevel down).
Despite what a lot of people have been saying LA planes aren't better shooting planes than BD's. Bedding angle 13+ bevel 30= 43 degrees. 2 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch, why bother?

+1 on Kees' blindfolded test idea

I'm afraid that you are way off understanding how a BU smoother works with a statement like this. Just to educate you, the cutting angle of a BU plane can be made much steeper with a high microbevel. For example, a 50 degree microbevel would create a plane with a 62 degree cutting angle. This would smooth just about any interlocked grain without tearout.

I have wanted to reply to Kees but do not know where to start. Corneel, I'm sorry, but I do not understand any of your writings. They just do not many sense to me. Perhaps it is too much Christmas pudding

To BB, I think that you and I are on the same wavelength - whew! My use of a windsurfing term is to try and describe that (let's call it "gravity") can be shifted around, that we do this either by designing it in or we do it in the way we hold or use a tool (in this particular case, a handplane). "Hang" may indeed be an alternate term. I use "hang" to describe the relationship of a saw handle to the saw plate. I can see how you would use it with a handplane -the relationship of the handle to the cutting edge.

Mignal, the razee design is intended to lower the centre of gravity.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Vann]

Despite what a lot of people have been saying LA planes aren't better shooting planes than BD's. Bedding angle 13+ bevel 30= 43 degrees. 2 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch, why bother?

Which is why I have an O1 iron with a primary bevel at 25 degrees, and a microbevel 2 degrees higher.
Bedding angle 12 + bevel 27= 39 degrees. 6 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch (worth it for end grain).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Jacob]

.....
Despite what a lot of people have been saying LA planes aren't better shooting planes than BD's. Bedding angle 13+ bevel 30= 43 degrees. 2 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch, why bother?

..

I'm afraid that you are way off understanding how a BU smoother works with a statement like this. Just to educate you, the cutting angle of a BU plane can be made much steeper with a high microbevel. For example, a 50 degree microbevel would create a plane with a 62 degree cutting angle. This would smooth just about any interlocked grain without tearout.

Just to educate you - you can do much the same with a bevel down plane

....Perhaps it is too much Christmas pudding

Is that what it is! :lol:

To BB, I think that you and I are on the same wavelength ...

I think this is very true :lol: :lol:

My use of a windsurfing term is to try and describe that (let's call it "gravity") can be shifted around, that we do this either by designing it in or we do it in the way we hold or use a tool (in this particular case, a handplane). "Hang" may indeed be an alternate term. I use "hang" to describe the relationship of a saw handle to the saw plate. I can see how you would use it with a handplane -the relationship of the handle to the cutting edge.

Have you tried attaching weights and counterbalances to a plane (like archers do with modern bows). I think you should, rather than theorising from the armchair. Let us know how you get on - photos please :lol:

Mignal, the razee design is intended to lower the centre of gravity.
.....

Hm, taking an ounce or so of wood from the body, that'd lower the centre of gravity by what, 1/8" perhaps? Not even that. Work it out Derek instead of just guessing!
As I understand the razee was the school model - for smaller people. Nothing to do with gravity. PS changed my mind about that after looking at this http://workingbyhand.wordpress.com/2013 ... ee-planes/
I guess they are just another tool makers fashion, with no particular strengths or weaknesses except in the minds of salesmen.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hm, taking an ounce or so of wood from the body, that's lower the centre of gravity by what, 1/8" perhaps? Not even that. Work it out Derek instead of just guessing!
As I understand the razee was the school model - for smaller people. Nothing to do with gravity.

Jacob dear fellow, one description (not my own) of a razee plane is ....

The name is derived from the nautical term razee, a sailing ship that has been cut down to reduce the number of decks. The name is derived from the French vaisseau rasé, meaning a razed. In a similar context, the rear part of the wooden plane is lowered in a cut-away style, lowering the totes position on the plane. Lowering the tote allows for better balance, and more precise control by lowering the centre of gravity. It also aligns the force being applied right behind the blade. (more here: http://workingbyhand.wordpress.com/2013 ... ee-planes/)

Back to school for you

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

Posts crossed! Same link.
Lowering the tote allows for better balance, and more precise control by lowering the centre of gravity. - toolie talk, largely meaningless.The bit about gravity clearly nonsense.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Despite what a lot of people have been saying LA planes aren't better shooting planes than BD's. Bedding angle 13+ bevel 30= 43 degrees. 2 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch, why bother?

Which is why I have an O1 iron with a primary bevel at 25 degrees, and a microbevel 2 degrees higher.
Bedding angle 12 + bevel 27= 39 degrees. 6 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch (worth it for end grain).

Cheers, Vann.

Hi Vann

Just an addition to this, in the review I completed of the Veritas Shooting Plane there was a comparison with the LN #51 (which I own). The Veritas has a 12 degree bed and is BU, the LN is a BD plane with a 45 degree bed. Both planes are skewed at 20 degrees.

In addition to comparing PM-V11 vs A2 steel, it was possible to compare both planes using A2 steel. One of the most interesting results for me was how the BU orientation reduced blade wear over the BD orientation.

Briefly, both A2 blades were used with a 25 degree bevel. The Veritas proved to retain its edge significantly longer than the LN. The LN was also tested with its blade at 30 degrees. The BU Veritas at 25 degrees (37 degree cutting angle) continued to last significantly longer than the BD LN at 30 degrees (45 degree cutting angle).

Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Posts crossed! Same link.
Lowering the tote allows for better balance, and more precise control by lowering the centre of gravity. - toolie talk, largely meaningless.The bit about gravity clearly nonsense.

Oh sure, Jacob ... clearly nonsense :lol: :lol: :lol:

Regards from Perth

Derek

:lol: :lol: :lol: ..............................................

 

[Jacob]

Posts crossed! Same link.
Lowering the tote allows for better balance, and more precise control by lowering the centre of gravity. - toolie talk, largely meaningless.The bit about gravity clearly nonsense.

Oh sure, Jacob ... clearly nonsense :lol: :lol: :lol:

Regards from Perth

Derek

:lol: :lol: :lol: ..............................................

If you bothered to think about it (and kept off the christmas pudding) you would see that it'd shift the CG by a few mm (AOTBE) i.e. an insignificant amount. It's not even clear that a large movement would be significant anyway.

 

[Corneel]

I have wanted to reply to Kees but do not know where to start. Corneel, I'm sorry, but I do not understand any of your writings. They just do not many sense to me. Perhaps it is too much Christmas pudding

That's disappointing Derek, I thought you would have a stronger imagination. To make it easier for you I will give numbers to my ideas, so you can just quote the number when you don't understand something.

1. BU or BD makes no difference for the wood. The wood only cares about the iron where it actually touches the iron. How far back from the edge does the wood touch the iron? 1mm? Maybe it slightly glides over the iron at 2mm from the edge? Any further the shaving curls away from the edge, and the cut surface dwindels back behind the edge. For the wood, the bevel orientation is just semantics.
Edit: Just had a peek at the Kato video. http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/review_of_cap_iron_study.html From 4:20 you can see how the shaving leaves the iron after no more then 0.2 mm!

2. The only difference for the wood is the cutting angle. 45 degree in a standard BD plane. 45 degrees in a BU plane with a 33 degree bevel. Exactly the same.

3. The low angle (in the name "low angle plane") at which the iron is presented to the wood is a matter of perception. When you glue the iron to the frog in a Bedrock plane, thus laminating them together, you instantly transfer that plane into a low angle plane. The bedding of the frog now becomes the bedding of the new laminated iron.

4. You say that you compared BU versus BD in your shooting board test. But you don't mention that you also compared high versus low cutting angle in the exact same experiment. An experiment with two variables at the same time. So you cannot conclude that the bevel orientation was the major cause for the differences in wear. Because the wood doesn't know about the bevel orientation of the plane, you can just as well conclude that the cutting angle was the major cause.

5. Look at these two planes. Bearing in mind the points discussed above, what differences do we see? Exactly what difference in the planes make them feel different?

The rear handle is a little bit more upright in the BU plane, and it is positioned a little bit more to the rear. The BU plane has a four finger grip versus 3 finger grip of the BD plane. And the center of gravity is lower in the BU plane. And now I am curious which one of these details make a real difference in the experience of using the plane.

 

[tim burr]

The rear handle is a little bit more upright in the BU plane, and it is positioned a little bit more to the rear. The BU plane has a four finger grip versus 3 finger grip of the BD plane. And the center of gravity is lower in the BU plane. And now I am curious which one of these details make a real difference in the experience of using the plane.

For me it's purely the 3 finger v's 4 finger grip. I have a veritas low angle jack and a stanley 5 1/2 so both similarly sized, however I prefer the stanley purely because I rest my index finger on the frog during use, something I can't do with the veritas. As a result I don't really like using the veritas all that much as it feels awkward in use and in the real world there is very little to separate the two planes in terms of results.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

1. BU or BD makes no difference for the wood. The wood only cares about the iron where it actually touches the iron. How far back from the edge does the wood touch the iron? 1mm? Maybe it slightly glides over the iron at 2mm from the edge? Any further the shaving curls away from the edge, and the cut surface dwindels back behind the edge. For the wood, the bevel orientation is just semantics.

2. The only difference for the wood is the cutting angle. 45 degree in a standard BD plane. 45 degrees in a BU plane with a 33 degree bevel. Exactly the same.

Hi Kees

OK, this is easier to explain - still theoretical, but hopefully someone qualified can interpret my thoughts and support or reject the notion.

Firstly, none of the above is relevant. Misses the point completely (as you will hopefully recognise in a short while). I'm not dismissing what you have written, just that it does not relate to the issue of Centre of Effort.

Both BU and BD planes plane wood. The wood cannot determine if they are BU or BD. Ignore cutting angles. Tis is also irrelevant in this topic. The wood cannot tell if the cutting angle comes from a B or BD plane.

The issue of C of E is not what happens on or to the wood. It is about what happens to the user of the plane. It is the experience the planer has when using a BD or BU plane. It is not just these planes, but the experience of planing when the hang of the handle is changed, when the handle is raised or the body is lowered.

4. You say that you compared BU versus BD in your shooting board test. But you don't mention that you also compared high versus low cutting angle in the exact same experiment. An experiment with two variables at the same time. So you cannot conclude that the bevel orientation was the major cause for the differences in wear. Because the wood doesn't know about the bevel orientation of the plane, you can just as well conclude that the cutting angle was the major cause.

I did compare BU and BD in the shooting plane review. And I compared low verses high beds. And I compared different bevel angles.

Of course you can draw conclusions (about BU and BD) with multiple variables involved - I am a trained researcher (as well as a clinician), and controlling variables is bread-and-butter to me. There was absolutely no doubt that the BD orientation, with the blade bedded at 45 degrees, created greater force on the edge of the blade than did the blade in the BU orientation, which was bedded at 12 degrees.

You have perhaps only read the one review. There was a second, a follow up. Look at the conclusions.

Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... lades.html

5. Look at these two planes. Bearing in mind the points discussed above, what differences do we see? Exactly what difference in the planes make them feel different?

Image

Image

The rear handle is a little bit more upright in the BU plane, and it is positioned a little bit more to the rear. The BU plane has a four finger grip versus 3 finger grip of the BD plane. And the center of gravity is lower in the BU plane. And now I am curious which one of these details make a real difference in the experience of using the plane.

Thank for these pics, Kees. These again allow me to show you what I have been referring to all along.

What you will see below are vector lines. The single blue line represents the Centre of Effort, and the red line is where this is increased.

Please keep in mind that I am just theorising. I am trying to find a way to both convey what I have observed for some years and translate it into something that may be explained scientifically. Vectors and engineering are not my area of expertise (and it shows!). However, I recognise that if we can understand what is happening here, it may just contribute to plane design ergonomics.

There must be a reason why pushing horizontally (with the more upright handle on the BU) creates less resistance than pushing down (with the more forward leaning BD handle)

Look at this picture of the BD plane ...

When you push down on a forward leaning handle, you direct weight over the mouth. If you raise the hand (handle) higher, the weight is increased, and resistance increases with it. (Keep in mind that both BD and BD also place pressure on the front knob. For the argument, let us just assume that this is the same for both planes).

Here is the BU plane with the more upright handle ...

Now the weight is lifted off the mouth. Of course, if you add a handle with more forward lean, then you increase the weight over the mouth, and thereby increase resistance.

I experienced this when I changed the handles on my LV planes from the original to Bailey-style.

Keep in mind that there is also the angle of the bed to take into account. From my earlier experiments, the lower bed exerts less force on the edge of the blade, and the higher bed exerts greater force on the edge of the blade.

The combination of lower C of E and lowered force combines to make the BU plane feel lighter in the hand as if it were "floating". Conversely, the increased resistance when pushing the BD plane makes it feel more "powerful".

These are features that are part of the ergonomics of plane use. They do not directly change the way the plane impacts on the wood.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

All that blue line stuff is completely over ridden by how you actually push the thing. Without moving your hand from the handle you can pull/push it backwards, forwards, downwards, or even lift it upwards. All directions of effort are possible. The blue line diagram for the "C of E" should be a blue blob! Add to this the effort applied to the front knob and could find yourself in another space time continuum! :shock:
Are you still on the christmas pudding Derek?

PS and then what happens if you add candlewax to the sole? All bets are off. It doesn't bear thinking about. :roll:

 

[G S Haydon]

Derek I have been reading these posts with interest, thanks for taking the time to expand on your articles. It has been hard to follow sometimes as this has turned into BU vs BD. Am I right in thinking that you are suggesting that a more upright tote makes for easy planing as you push forward more than forward and down like we do with a Bailey type tote. Some day I might get my mits on a BU plane so I can contrast the two.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I don't really want to enter this debate, but I'll just add a couple of thoughts based on my professional experience as a design engineer.

Derek states in his 2006 article that 'Centre of Gravity' and 'Centre of Effort' are not the same thing. He is absolutely right. 'Centre of Gravity' is fixed for any given plane, and could best be described as the 'balance point' of the plane; the point at which the plane will balance fore and aft, side to side, and up-down. Once a plane is built and set up, it's C of G will be fixed, and won't change unless you add bits on or take bits off.

Any analysis of the forces acting on a plane must consider ALL the forces acting, including (as Jacob correctly points out) any forces applied to the front of the plane. Also, there will be friction between the sole of the plane and the wood, the effect of gravity acting downwards (the 'weight' of the plane - it's mass times acceleration due to gravity), resisted by the supporting force of the wood acting upwards; the forces applied to the wood by the cutting iron (mostly horizontal, but with a small vertical component) and the forces acting on the plane's rear handle. That latter force will be complex, depending on whether the user is pushing with the heel of their hand, the top of their hand, or evenly - the 'centre of effort' will vary. There will also be a vertical component of force applied by the handle hand at some parts of the planing stroke, and the vertical force applied to the front of the plane will also vary as the planing stroke progresses.

Good luck analysing that lot.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

CC, that is exactly right. The C of G is fixed and the C of E will vary.

I was on the point of answering Graham when you posted.

Graham wrote:

Am I right in thinking that you are suggesting that a more upright tote makes for easy planing as you push forward more than forward and down like we do with a Bailey type tote.

Graham, that is the issue. While this was not really about BU or BD, these plane orientations make it easier to understand the C of E concept. It helps one understand why the planes feel different in use.

There is an analogous situation with sawing dovetails: If you angle the saw downwards, you effectively increase the pitch of the teeth, and the saw will be harder to push. If you raise the angle at which you saw you will lower the pitch and make the saw easier to push - and then one needs to raise the work piece to facilitate this option. That is where a Moxon vise comes in.

The height of a work bench also changes the angle at which we plane. A high workbench will encourage one to push the plane on the horizontal with the heel of the hand. That lowers the C of E. A low bench will cause an upright handle to be uncomfortable (as the wrist is too cocked), and a lower handle that allows one to push down will be preferred. That increases the C of E.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

So what you are saying is that;
1. a badly designed handle is uncomfortable
2 a handle for normal use might not be comfortable at say knee level, or above your head.
I think I get it now.