Hi All
I am currently working with figured poplar, of all things. This stuff tears out really easily, although it planes alright with a 15 degree back bevel on the iron of a ratty old Millers Falls #4 1/2. The back bevel is a godsend to me, as it allows me to work difficult soft woods which we have a lot of in the Pacific NW. I was wondering whether a higher angle plane works even better? Is it an alternative way of achieving the same thing? I’m relatively new to hand tools and I find that planing a big panel gives me a lot of time to think about these things.
David b
Replies
David,
I've been playing with planes for over a year now, using (as often as not) difficult timbers with awkward grain of one kind or another. Like you, I discovered (via advice here and elsewhere on the web, as well as experience) that high cutting angles help to cut nasty grain more easily and with little or no damage.
There seems to be a general principle that goes: higher the angle the greater the abiity to deal with nasty grain, sans tear out; but the harder it is to push the plane.
This means that you need to use a shallow cut, a narrower blade or be fairly strong! If you look at Lyn Mangiameli's test of high angle planes, you will find a lot of interesting observations; and some conclusions that may be of use to you. Here is one quote:
"For me, the lessons most safely drawn from this investigation (and for the reasons I express above, all speculation should be done very cautiously) is that higher blade angles are generally useful for denser woods, that back bevels work and are an inexpensive way to achieve a range of effective cutting angles, and that a plane with an adjustable mouth is almost essential to exploit the use of a back beveled blade. It appears also, that there is something about the infill design, that allows such planes to perform over a wide range of wood types, with but only a modest increase beyond Standard pitch".
That last bit about the infill design has to do basically with their very heavy weight and the instrinsic down-push this offers, as well as the momentum of the plane once you get it going. There also seems to be a factor to do with thick, very stiff blades allied with precise bedding in the plane.
I am lucky enough to have a Marcou plane or two. These are heavy, precisely made and can be configured with blades having high cutting angles and narrow mouths. They do the business on nasty wood, I can tell you.
In short: heavy, stiff, well made, high angled planes give the best chance of getting a damage-free cut at the price of a higher effort to use. Some of these factors seem to be "tradable" (eg heavy/precisely-made plane means you need a less-high cutting angle to get the same effect as a "lesser" plane will give with a higher angle).
Here is a link to the Lyn Mangiamelli article. The conclusions-and-such offer a good summary, at the bottom of the page.
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.shtml
Lataxe
PS Use of a bevel-up plane makes it easy to swap out blades with various bevels and hence cutting angles - same effect as back-bevelling to get a higher cutting angle but probably a bit easier to achieve.
Edited 12/10/2007 5:44 am ET by Lataxe
Thank you for that well considered response, Lataxe. Whereas I'm not in a position to acquire or store nicer planes, I think that I will try some higher end, thicker irons for the planes I have. I don't think a few extra irons should set me back too much. I think those will help tighten up the mouth as well.
Thanks again for the response and the link.
David b
David, the answer might be in simply putting down the smoother and finishing up with a scraper. The simplicity of a scraper does not appeal to the tool tinkerer in most of us, but it will always be the most expedient solution to the problem you mentioned.
Thanks UrbaneMy problem is that I need to remove significant material, such as cleaning up the disparity in height between boards in a glue up. My scraper (Stanley 80) won't stay sharp long enough to remove much heavy material. I still am hit and miss with sharpening the blade correctly, so it is a hassle when it stops taking shavings. Maybe my post-holiday budget will allow a better blade....
David
All the esoterics of the above discussions and sidetracks aside, keep on using your smoother plus backbevel. The question I have, since you are needing to remove ridges (joins), is whether your blade is cambered? A camber would enable you to take a deeper shaving and prevent fowling the surface with tracks.
Regards from Perth
Derek
HI DerekMy plane iron does have a bit of camber and doesn't usually leave grooves. The plane I'm using is fairly crude and has an enormous mouth. It is also quite a bit heavier than my vintage stanley. I'm currently using a 15 degree back bevel. I suppose that gives an effective 60 degree angle, although I'm just guessing. Anyway, it does remarkably little tear out. It does chatter somewhat, I imagine because of the thin stock blade. It also provides noticeably more resistance when planing as opposed to the Stanley. My garage is pretty cold but not after half an hour with the back bevel plane. I am beginning to see the wisdom of a dedicated high angle plane. I'm afraid that the back bevel will have to do for now, things being as they are. I am anxious to see what a difference a nicer, thicker blade will make in this application.Sharpening isn't much of a problem with the Veritas MKll. It may be a crutch, but it sure saves a beginner a lot of headaches. Thanks so much for all the fascinating info. This is great stuff!
David B
David,
I don't advocate back bevels on higher end planes because they work to undo the tight mouth that some of us take great pains to build into our bevel down planes. However on some planes they may be the answer to your problems. Higher bedding angles do wonders for dealing with figured materials. The higher the bed angle the more like a scraper the plane works. You would notice a good bit of difference going to a 50 degree bed angle and I have noticed a great difference going from 50 to 55 degrees. The best combination I've found for tear out prone woods is 55 degrees and a very tight mouth. I have recently planed some 100+ year old heart pine with a plane with the 55 degree set up. It finished up quite smooth and was perfectly clean around the knots. Take into consideration that this plane was an infill with a .004 mouth and a .250 thick solidly bedded iron.
The higher pitched planes are harder to push and this is why the extra mass of an infill is a great advantage. I think the higher the pitch the greater the mass needed to drive the plane.
I'm not saying that one can not plane these woods with lesser tools, I'm just saying that it is a much easier task with a tool that is designed just for this task.
Ron
Hi Ron
I have a different take on several of the points you make.
Firstly, the mouth size becomes largely unimportant when the bedding angle reaches 60 degrees. In other words, your perceived weakness of a backbevel - while opening the mouth of a BD plane - is negated by the increased angle of attack.
Secondly, I would not dare to suggest a best combination of bedding angle and mouth size. There is just so much variation in what works and what does not. Some wood is best planed at 65-70 degrees, while others respond to 40 degrees. By-and-large I would not go near many of my boards with an angle of attack under 60 degrees.
Third point. High mass in a high angle smoother is helpful, I agree. However, I believe that the resistance of steel on wood is a bigger issue that the angle of attack. My HNT Gordon planes (all bedded at 60 degrees) slide smoothly. Two factors are apparent here - the wooden sole is slippery, and these planes limit the width of the blade to 2". I often fail to see the relevance of wide blades in smoothing planes. There are more advantages in a narrower blade than disadvantages (such as increased blade stiffness for the same thickness, hence better damping).
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
You say that: "Firstly, the mouth size becomes largely unimportant when the bedding angle reaches 60 degrees".
I'm sure you'll have experience as well as the theory to back up your statement. Nevertheless I have to say that I do find that, even with a 60+ cutting angle in a heavy plane, it can make a difference if the mouth is tight-closed.
A tight-closed mouth seems to help with that kind of nasty grain that tends to flake out rather than tear out .
I suspect that some micro-configurations of grain are such that they will somehow transmit force to the grain in front of them, even when being chipped rather than sliced out of the wood by a blade. The tight mouth seems to allows the plane sole to keep these sensitive front-rascals where they are until it is their turn to be cut.
But otherwise, 'tis as you say - the high-angle blade is starting to scrape rather than slice and the grain-to-come is largely unaffected. But 60 degrees is not 90 degrees, so some forward-force must be transmitted by a plane blade so-configured.
Any further comments?
Lataxe
Derek,I think you missed my point completely. The original poster asked if a higher bed angle helped with tearout in figured grain, and I simply stated what I had found that worked well for me. How do I know this? Last year I was developing a design for a 55 degree infill smoothing plane. It takes a lot of attention to ensure that a plane has a tight mouth and because this was going to be a cost issue I had much motivation to find out how critical a tight mouth was at 55 degrees. I put together 2 prototypes that were identical except for the mouth opening. I used the same iron to ensure that the results did not come as a result of different levels of sharpness. The test board was a piece of walnut with a tight knot and switch back grain. The plane with the tight mouth handled the area around the knot and the area of switch back grain considerably better than the plane with the larger mouth. Now had this been a piece of straight grained cherry the test probably would have been inconclusive, however the original poster's question addressed planing woods that are prone to tear out. I think the ability to hold a wood fiber very tight while it is being sheared need not be overlooked. If one is bent on creating a smoothing plane that will produce good results over a wide range of conditions then I would certainly suggest that it have tight mouth.In regards to mass. Anyone that has had the pleasure of planing wood with a standard bench plane and then reaching over and grabbing a plane with greater mass whether it be an infill or a Marcou style plane will tell you that if they had to do the work for a period of time they would much prefer the heavier plane. Why? With mass comes inertia and this means more leverage against the cut. I commonly use two smoothing planes when doing this kind of work. I start with a L-N bench plane and then change over to a very massive infill for the finishing touches. This spreads the work over two tools and extends time between sharpenings. I am alway looking forward to switching to the heavier plane because it requires less effort on my part than the bench planes.In most cases when people start back beveling irons in bevel down planes it's because they are most likely trying to get a plane to do work that it normally could not accomplish. I was merely trying to tactfully convey to David that if he as was going to be working a lot of figured wood he might wish to purchase a tool better configured for the work.You see Derek my professional area of expertise is engineering and I know better than to makes statements without research to back up my claims. I understand that your back ground is psychology.RonIf you're too open minded your brains will fall out.
Hi Ron
I was hoping for a bit of discussion ....! :)
One point I will make is that I find a definite difference between cutting angles (whether in a BU or BD plane) of 55 and 60 degrees. On the other hand, I find hardly any difference between 45 and 50 degrees. If all depends on the wood, and I suspect that this will be a factor in our differing points of view.
So, while I am not disputing your results, I could argue that planing with a 55 degree angle of attack is not the same as that of 60 degrees. Also, I am not saying that the mouth size is completely unimportant at 60 degrees. I am saying that it becomes increasingly less important, and that at 60 degrees this is more apparent than at 55 degrees.
The bottom line is, if "asked if a higher bed angle helped with tearout in figured grain", the higher the bed angle (in a BD plane), the less likelihood the tearout. (This does not necessary address the quality of the surface of the wood that is left, since some woods do not respond as well to high angles as they do to low angles).
Who else considers that the 60 degree point is a specific marker? Well, Terry Gordon (HNT Gordon) does for one: " a 60 degree cutting angle has an element of scraping which decreases the strength of the shaving lessening the requirement to break the shaving off before it tears the grain." I also discussed this with Karl Holtey and he was emphatic in saying that he "doesn't believe in tight mouths".
Mass? I believe we are largely in agreement here (that more mass = greater momentum = smoother planing on difficult grain). I have long been championing heavy scrub planes when these are used in hard woods. My first choice in (say) Jarrah is a #5 1/2 with a 5 1/2" radius blade. And then a LV scrub. Amongst several smoothers, I do have a Marcou, and this has a special ability to make the process effortless. Nevertheless, a light smoother is not to be discounted. It does require a different way of being used (e.g. more down force). See my review of the LV BU Smother for a discussion and analysis of the differences when put up against the lighter LV LA Smoother.
In most cases when people start back beveling irons in bevel down planes it's because they are most likely trying to get a plane to do work that it normally could not accomplish. I was merely trying to tactfully convey to David that if he as was going to be working a lot of figured wood he might wish to purchase a tool better configured for the work.
The research of Lyn Mangiomeli demonstrates that backbevels can work as well as a higher bedding. Nevertheless I would not recommend them either since the sharpening process is more complicated. I would also rather have the right tool at hand. Sometimes, however, one does what one has do with what one has at hand.
You see Derek my professional area of expertise is engineering and I know better than to makes statements without research to back up my claims. I understand that your back ground is psychology.
Like you I am schooled in scientific research and I attempt to verify my observations with reproducable data. That is one of the efforts I go to in the reviews I write, that is, attempting to make results as objective as possible. Of course, this does not stop everone disagreeing and having opinions of their own.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,This discussion is in fact engaging, I just hope we haven't hijacked David's thread. It seems that there is a lot we agree upon in regards to steeper bedding angles for planes. I have noticed the same as you in regards to the change from 45 degrees (standard) to 50 degrees (york) pitch. Some difference but not at much as some might think, I however have noticed a substantial change once one goes to 55 degrees (middle) pitch and would recommend anyone looking for better performance in figured materials to go directly to middle pitch, especially if they are L-N owners and are looking for a frog to solve some smoothing problems. I guess I contend that if one went to middle pitch (55 degrees) and another aspect of this set up was a tight mouth, then one could possibly fore go the need for a 60 degree plane. This was a factor in deciding to offer a tight mouth with my 55 degree plane design and goes along with my thinking of designing a plane that offers a great amount of performance in a wide variety of situations.What constitutes a tight mouth? What some consider a tight mouth and a generous mouth opening could be relative to their ability of building tolerance. I have heard discussions of planes with .001 to .002 mouths. I think this is a bit tight because it places use limits on that tool that are quite severe. I still consider a mouth opening of .004 tight however it will still allow a fairly generous shaving to pass. I know not many people measure their shavings but I would imagine that if inclined most would discover that when their planes are properly set up for smoothing difficult woods most of the shavings produced would in fact pass thru a .004 mouth opening. Attempting to take thicker shavings when try to plane difficult woods in my opinion is just asking for failure.At what angle does one stop planing and start scraping? Once past 60 degrees I think one is doing more scraping than planning and the mouth size becomes less a factor. I think that things happen exponentially as you get steeper. As I mentioned there is big difference from 50 to 60 degrees and I think once again from 55 to 60 degrees. I agree that once past 60 degrees the tightness of mouth possibly becomes a mute point, however I don't have real testing to back up this point so I will have to say that this is more opinion than something that has been tested and proven one way or another.Derek I think after the holiday season and we have a new year upon us, we should take on the required testing to prove this out. What say you? RonIf you're too open minded your brains will fall out.
Hi RonI don't think this thread is highjacked at all. With my limited experience, I think people would be much less frustrated with hand planes if they knew the benefits of higher angles. Just one less reason to fire up the sander.This is a great discussion with some really valuable insights.David B
At what angle does one stop planing and start scraping? Once past 60 degrees I think one is doing more scraping than planning and the mouth size becomes less a factor. I think that things happen exponentially as you get steeper. As I mentioned there is big difference from 50 to 60 degrees and I think once again from 55 to 60 degrees. I agree that once past 60 degrees the tightness of mouth possibly becomes a mute point, however I don't have real testing to back up this point so I will have to say that this is more opinion than something that has been tested and proven one way or another.
Hi Ron
My apologies for not replying before now. Got caught up with work.
This topic really does deserve a thread of its own, but David seems happy enough for discussion to continue, so ...
I have also been wondering how to define scraping and planing. Is it a product of the cutting angle, or is it defined by the cutting process? And are these meaningful categories?
A while ago I was looking at the difference in performance in a scraper plane using thick and thin blades and with- and without a hook.
With a hook the planes produced shavings that resembled those from a smoother. As a result of this I began to re-consider the definition of a scraper.
This is Tasmanian oak in my Stanley #112. The blade is set at about 80 degrees and the hook at 10 degrees, so producing a 70 degree cutting angle.
View Image
Here is Maple ..
View Image
I am afraid that I do not have a file picture of this wood scraped without a hook, and I shall have to take one to better illustatrate this point. I can't demonstrate this very well with Jarrah, one of the woods for which I do have a set of pictures, since the shavings of this plane do not easily lend themselves this way.
Here is Jarrah scraped with a hook (and same set up as above).
View Image
And here it is scraped without a hook. What you need to see it that the shavings are very much smaller and tighter.
View Image
The shavings produced by the hooked blades are plane-like rather than scraper-like. So are these scrapings or shavings?
How would you go about defining this difference?Regards from Perth
Derek
Some of the older books like Planecraft clearly show cabinet scrapers producing long, flowing shavings like a plane. My expectation when scraping with a cab. scraper or an insert in a plane is that shavings should be produced, fwiw. Obviously, different species might give different results but that doesn't alter my expectations starting out.And of course, ultimately what matters is surface quality and whether the methodology used readies the project for the application of a finish. That's what I'm shooting for at that stage of the game.
Oh yes, inertia, mass, momentum, moment of inertia, and all that stuff...
A quick look at momentum, i.e. mass times velocity: Clearly, when you increase the mass you increase the momentum. But you could also decrease the mass and push the plane faster to get the same momentum.
But what does momentum have to do with tearout? I have no clue, but some people much smarter than me have figured out that the process of cutting wood has visco-elastic properties, meaning there is more to tearout than momentum: tearout also depends on the milling velocity. It is amazing to see how good humans are in intuitively compensating for things that science has has a hard time figuring out. In any case, there most certainly there is an optimal point where a plane is neither too light nor too heavy (does not take rocket science to figure that out!).
Rocket scientists (and car designers and designers of machine tools, pretty much anybody who builds things that move) will confirm that weight distribution, "sprung mass", vibrational stiffness etc. are of paramount importance for the performance of the devices they design. Why would this be different for hand planes? In fact these folks spend millions of dollars making things lighter while at the same time improving the dynamic properties.
Boasting to build the heaviest plane on the planet is sooooooo outdated; maybe it is about time someone designs a plane the smart way instead of simply adding more mass?
Food for thought...
Chris Scholz
Galoot-Tools
I don't think momentum has any direct effect on tearout. What momentum* gives you is that it allows you to build up a "head of steam," so to speak, and slide the plane all of the way across the board, in one fell swoop, without the plane stalling, chattering, etc. In principle, this should lead to a better surface.
-Steve
*I'm not entirely convinced that momentum (vs. inertia = mass) is the important quantity here. A bit of wood fiber sticking up and waiting to tear out resists the motion of the plane, but is the amount of force it exerts essentially fixed (in which case momentum is what counts), or is the amount of force dependent on the velocity of the plane (in which case mass is what counts)? I suspect it's somewhere in between, which would mean that both velocity and mass are important, but that increasing mass by a given factor has more effect than increasing velocity by the same factor.
Momentum determines which of two objects in a collision will continue moving along its trajectory, and which will give way. I believe it is in fact the important quantity here, rather than force. Chattering is the result of the wood "winning" the momentum battle with the blade and knocking it off its trajectory.I think two additional things are worth noting:The relevant mass includes all the bodies in motion, so the weight of your arms and body (if moving) are added to that of the plane. This weight is, however, sprung or dampened by the soft tissues between your body and the tool. The same happens with the mass of the plane, and is why the stiffness of the body is so important.The velocity is a vector, so the direction of applied force (which creates momentum) is as important as the magnitude. Specifically, the component of that vector normal to the wood fibers is what's going to result in the cutting action. This is where posture and angle of arm extension relative to plane location come to bear. You want to maximize the normal component, while maintaining the minimum parallel component to avoid riding up onto the surface of the wood. I imagine that's where experience comes in.Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about, being a relative newcomer to hand tools. But as they say at the University of Chicago, "That's all well and good in practice, but how does it work in theory?"Best,
---Pedro
Mr S,
In my admittedly limited experience with planes (just over a year of use) the heavy plane gets an advantage with difficult grain because of both stiffness and weight. The weight helps both the continuing momentum of the swoosh but also allows more push forward, and less push down, by the user; the plane's own weight prevents it skipping.
Plane-stiffness contributes most to the prevention of chattering, perhaps. (Although weighty components, such as a thick blade and body, seem to contribute to stiffness too, without having to use exotic materials or expensive CAD-based R&D).
I have an LV smoother which is very well made and stiff, expecially with them grub screws in place. The very same blade at the very same cutting angle and with a tight mouth does not do as well as the very heavy Marcou S15A on nasty grain, particuarly very hard nasty grain. It seems to be the weight of the Marcou (as well as its stiffness and the other engineering factors) that makes the difference at "the cutting edge" (speaking literally and figuratively).
That Veritas will skip on hard-nasty, if I do not lean hard on the thang. The Marcou just goes: SWOOSH! Surprisingly, this makes the Marcou less hard to work over time than is the Veritas, despite it's weight. (Of course, I am a dragger-back - no lifting off the workpiece with this lazy boy).
Lataxe, a bit of a heavy thang hisself.
There is certainly a point of diminishing returns in regards to mass. Mass added just for the sake of mass is counter productive especially if it is not balanced correctly. If most of the weight were in the toe it could wreck havoc with ones wrist. If you study some of the heavier smoothing planes you will finally come to the conclusion that the maximum weight per inch ratio is just under a pound per inch. This seems to be optimum for a smoothing plane but you would not want that in a block plane. A good bit of the weight in a well balanced plane will be found right behind the iron and in the lever cap right over the cutting edge as you might well expect. This is because there is a larger piece of the sole behind the iron and of course the lever cap is where it must be. I think once a plane exceeds this ratio the effort required to pick it up and return it the starting point on the work piece exceeds the advantage it gives you in the effort of the cut. RonIf you're too open minded your brains will fall out.
Edited 12/12/2007 12:38 pm ET by Ronaway
Love numbers! ~1 lb/in (about 18 g/mm), CG close to blade, got it, thank you Ron.Chris Scholz
Galoot-Tools
Greetings, Derek
You stated "I believe that the resistance of steel on wood is a bigger issue that the angle of attack."
This is a negligible issue easily dealt with by simply applying an occasional rub of paraffin wax on the plane sole. Just yesterday, I smooth planed all the parts for a curly maple dining table I'm making. I filled a 32 gallon garbage can with the white, fluffy shavings, and got quite the workout. Every few minutes, I'd simply grab the chunk of paraffin (stolen from my wife's hot wax treament machine!!) that I have sitting on my bench and rub a quick "X" down the sole. It makes the planing resistance, especially with high pitch frogs, negligible.
Jeff
Jeff,
Never mind that plane talk - more on the hot wax machine!
Lataxe, having terrible thoughts.
Lataxe
You'd wish to be extremely cautious regarding what you insert into the hot wax machine!! I thought I had a high tolerance for pain, and I couldn't even put my foot in it. It felt like my skin was melting off.....wayyyyyyyy tooooooo hot for me.
Jeff (who's wife has silky smooth feet)
So here I am working my way through an engaging discussion on bed angles and back bevels when the thread takes a sudden turn and I find myself being tracked by a heat-seeking missile! I tell ya there ought to be some sort of warning system.
-Chuck (from the bomb shelter)
an occasional rub of paraffin wax on the plane sole
Jeff
Of course you are absolutely right. When using iron planes I scribble a little candle wax on the sole. On woodies I do not need to bother :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
I have no input regarding woodies. I don't like them, probably because I never took the time (small as it may be) to learn the nuances of a woodie. I had a Knight Jointer plane, but sold it. I found the depth of cut setting to be clumsy, and difficult to adjust finely. I guess it was just my ignorance.
I have several wooden planes, but they are all moulding planes, with the exception of a moving filletster.
Jeff
Well, I can't speak for the beef tallow, but the paraffin works well. If I'm not careful, it almost seems like the plane wishes to literally fly off the end of the work. As soon as I feel the resistance increasing, I add more.
Jeff
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled