Why Two?

[David C]

Corneel,

I was amused by your maintainance post, thought you freehand sharpeners had developed inbuilt protractors.

From the evolutionary backwaters of Eclipse honing guide use, I can assure you that a backbevelled blade is a wonderous thing, taming the most ornery of dense, interlocked, exotic hardwoods. It is also no trouble to maintain, and the wire edges are easy to feel if you go about it in the right way.

There is a problem with the Veritas and Quangsheng approach. We have absolutely no need to have a blade ground at say 38 degrees, and another at 48 degrees. Blades can all be ground at 25 degrees. Only the very small honed bevel angle needs to be changed.

If one thinks of the thickness of a fine shaving, 1 to 2 thou", the width of honing required for a back bevel (or a bevel up blade) can be kept very small indeed. I use something of the order of 0.2 to 0.3 mm. Thus the blade could be returned to standard use with a minimum of grinding.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[Jacob]

Corneel,

I was amused by your maintainance post, thought you freehand sharpeners had developed inbuilt protractors.

We all have them Dave - it's called a brain. Some astonishingly precise performances can be done which makes hitting a 30º bevel look dead easy (which it is). Think of hitting the bulls eye on a dart board. Think of just hitting the board - thats a degree of precision good enough for sharpening. Some people can't even hit the board but that is relatively uncommon.

 

[David C]

Well Jacko,

10 degrees he found irritating.

I think you have missed the point.

David

 

[Corneel]

Corneel,

I was amused by your maintainance post, thought you freehand sharpeners had developed inbuilt protractors.

No, the funny thing is, you don't need a protractor. I start with the grind angle from the grinder. And then just a little more of much more if neccessary, no need for any more precision then that. I don't know at what angle my tools are sharpened.

But the backbevel irritated me like I wrote. Could be a personal problem of course. Luckily I am not into ornery dense tropics. The more humble stuff like Jatoba or Padouk, even quartersawn crossgrained stuff is no problem when you set the chipbreaker very close to the edge.

 

[David C]

I was just poking fun at the dogmatic approach of the freehand sharpeners............

Honing guides are of course, quicker more efficient, more accurate and more versatile for straight or cambered edge tools, chisels, plane blades and spokeshave blades, scraper plane blades, shoulder and rebate plane blades, but sadly not for gouges, or moulding plane blades.

Oi, veh!

David

 

[Corneel]

Have fun with your jig David. And I'll enjoy the freedom, the speed and the efficiency of freehand honing. All the while honing my skills, so when I need a sharp gouge, it's easy.

 

[Jacob]

Well Jacko,

10 degrees he found irritating.

I think you have missed the point.

David

10º is exactly one third of 30º and quite easy to judge, if you need to be that precise. Have a go Dave - get a real protractor out and draw out a few measured angles - train the inner protractor!
Shalom!

PS to get started draw out equilateral triangles. The corners should be 60º. Half of that is 30º - and so on. 90 and 45 are easy. 45 is half 90, 15 is third of 45. The 360º circle is very anthropo(something), rather like imperial measure.

 

[woodbrains]

Yes, but I was comparing it to bench planes...
The LA configuration are indeed useful for block planes as they are compact, but I don't see the point of planes such as the No. 62. It's a bench plane so it's not compact and the LA configuration doesn't really offer any angles that the No. 5 doesn't. Also you lose the cap iron, which I think is a major factor in preventing tearout.

Sam

Hello,

I don't disagree about the no 62 and its cousins. I did start a thread about the logic in making a LA plane and then honing the irons with really steep pitches to tame ornery grain, but it got bogged down in sharpening again, and I didn't get many meaningful answers. The LA jacks etc. seem to try to be everything to all men, and I think it comes about as close to the aim as anything, but I don't like the idea of pushing a blade through wood that is not as fine a wedge as possible. It does work, though and the higher the pitch, the less need for a cap iron effect, so it does function, although not as efficiently as a dedicated high pitch plane, such as Corneel's 55 degree one he wants to build would be. Even a regular pitched plane with a back bevel thickens the wedge at the business end some, though not as much as a LA with a 50 degree angle, as I believe is advised by some.

However, I decided to dedicate a Record 04 1/2 smoother as a back bevel plane. If I grind and hone a 20 degree bevel and then add a 15 degree back bevel, I am only increasing the included angle to 35 degrees, not much and possibly an advantage for edge retention, but gain a plane with an EP of 55 degrees. I keep the cap iron too, if the back bevel is long enough for the leading edge of the cap iron to mate with the blade in the bevel itself. Now I think this is the best way to achieve high EP without a lot of expense, in just a standard plane. If I had only one plane, I would consider two irons, but my Record cost me a tenner, so 2 planes are not out of the question! Honing guide might be an advantage here, just saying.

Mike.

 

[bugbear]

the 62 wasn't popular and was discontinued.
.

The material used, ordinary cast iron, couldn't tolerate the forces at the mouth, and always (near enough) cracked. Never a popular feature,

The modern interpretations fix this fault.

BugBear

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

I have a US made 60 1/2 bLock plane, which is cracking at either side of the mouth. It seems the American made LA planes are machined rather too thin in this area. Perhaps the 62 also suffered from this. I handled a few some time ago and they seemed a bit on the light side. The Veritas LA jack is massive in this area, as well as being a ductile iron.

Aside from longevity faults with the 62 I don't think there was much ( if any ) experimentation with high EP in those days so perhaps any perceived advantage on the 62 was not understood. Plus, the Stanley catalogue at the time was immense, so end grain work such as in shooting and mitres was covered with lots of other alternatives.

Mike.

 

[bugbear]

Aside from longevity faults with the 62 I don't think there was much ( if any ) experimentation with high EP in those days so perhaps any perceived advantage on the 62 was not understood.

HIgh EP was well known in those days - many wooden and infill smoothers were high EP courtesy of their bedding angle. Do you mean high EP on BU planes?

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Aside from longevity faults with the 62 I don't think there was much ( if any ) experimentation with high EP in those days so perhaps any perceived advantage on the 62 was not understood.

More likely they were simply not perceived.

I bought a Stanley 60 1/2 and woodbrains was right it does cut end grain better than a 220. In fact just as well as any other sharp plane with a normal EP angle, but with the advantage of the compact profile for small or one handed work.

 

[woodbrains]

Aside from longevity faults with the 62 I don't think there was much ( if any ) experimentation with high EP in those days so perhaps any perceived advantage on the 62 was not understood.

HIgh EP was well known in those days - many wooden and infill smoothers were high EP courtesy of their bedding angle. Do you mean high EP on BU planes?

BugBear

Hello,

Yes, I mean in LA planes, sorry if that wasn't clear. I had been talking about high pitch angles earlier, so I thought it was more obvious that I perhaps was.

Mike.

 

[woodbrains]

More likely they were simply not perceived.

I bought a Stanley 60 1/2 and woodbrains was right it does cut end grain better than a 220. In fact just as well as any other sharp plane with a normal EP angle, but with the advantage of the compact profile for small or one handed work.

Hello,

The 60 1/2 is a handy size. I quite like the slightly narrower body on the Stanley too. Somewhere I have a Hock A2 cryo blade to fit one (I dropped mine off a ladder, so. The blade is now spare!) if you would like it, I will send it to you. I think the Hock A2 is better than most and holds a great edge whilst keeping a 30 deg hone. If yo would like it, PM me and I'll post it to you.

Mike.

 

[David C]

Hock A2, very good indeed.

David

 

[yetloh]

The point isn't that you can't make usefull planes without a chipbreaker.

Hi Corneel,

I'm sure Karl Holtey would have something to say about this statement, although I doubt that it would have influenced the design of his No 982, which I can testify works superbly without the benefit of a chipbreaker. I also recall a Japanese academic paper based on research which appeared to demonstrate that they are of very limited usefulness. Unfortunately I seem to have lost the link to this and cannot now find it. Hovever, given the thickness of Japanese plane blades, the conclusions do not surprise me.

Jim

 

[Corneel]

When i reread my own sentense, i can see why you don't understand it. Too many nots in one sentence. But i mean to say, yes you can make usefull planes without a chipbraker. But there are so many double ironplanes around allready that it only makes sence to learn how to use them.

Did you watch the video's? I hope you get curius enough to give it a try. Most anyone who for the first time really uses the chipbreaker are blown away by its usefullness. About that Japanese article, not every Japanese thinks like that. Professor Kato and Kawai did extensive research to the chipbreaker effect and were positive about it.

PS, if you can find the link to that article I would be pleased to read it.

 

[Corneel]

BTW. I don't see how a THICK iron helps against tearout. The Stanley planes are a good example that you can get away with remarkably thin ones.

 

[yetloh]

But the reason you can get away with a thin blade is because the back iron stiffens it. Yes I did watch your video but I do not think the effect you found was to do with having a back iron per se. I believe it is more to do with a properly adjusted back iron endowing the blade with the necessary stiffness.

Jim

 

[Corneel]

Did you see how I first got considerable tearout with the chipbreaker set at 1mm, and then I got a smooth surface with the chipbreaker set very close to the edge (something like 0.2mm)?