I just read Ronaway’s post about comparing the planes from two makers and thought to initiate a more general discussion – as not to detract from his question.
What influences the performance of, say, a smoother? What do we expect from one?
I want a smoother that produces thin shavings (= ability to make fine cuts) and (ideally) no tearout (read: minimize the tearout).
The role of the pitch (the angle between the upper surface of theiron and the sole) is pretty well understood (low for the endgrain and ok for softwoods, higher for the hardwoods, yet higher for complex grain).
The bedding angle: when low and combined with a thicker iron more resisting (in my opinion, but no side by side comparison yet) to chatter.
Fairly small mouth opening (but let us not be to fanatic about it) with a crisp front edge = less tearout.
Flat sole is good. A better understanding of the concavity found on Japanese planes would be desirable (it just might be better than the conventional western flat sole).
The metal used for the irons. There is a compromise between ability to achieve a sharper edge and to retain it for a longer time (see Hock’s page).
Ability of the iron to resist shifting during use (such as when encountering a complex grain). I understand (from contemplating the design and reading about others’ experience) that LV planes (with their side screws) address this issue quite effectively.
Ergonomics of a plane. Square/rectangular knobs of the many infills – maybe ok for the collectors but for a seasoned user? I doubt it, but no first hand knowledge.
Weight of a plane?
The damping characteristics of wood vs metal? The effects on how a plane ‘feels’?
More?
Where and when does the performance cross into ’boutique/jewelry’?
Best wishes to all,
Metod
Replies
Someone with way more experience than I told me that the definition of an ideal smoother was a plane that'll leave a perfect finish when even working against the grain..
My 4 1/2 is good... when tuned for a fine cut my 5 1/2 is better when grain is particularly uncoperative, but while it'll take a 1 thou shaving against the grain, even it won't leave a mirror smooth finish... That's infill territory, and a special infill at that..
As for jewelery... I'd reckon that starts when a tool is bought to languish on a shelf simply because it looks purty... So long as it's a tool that earns its keep, I don't care if it's been damascus finished, or engraved by the finest gun-smith... it aint jewelery.
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Edited 3/8/2006 3:45 pm by Midnight
Mike,
Thanks for your thoughts. I chuckled at your definition of 'ideal'. My aim was a bit lower, shall we say, less idealistic.
But you pointed exactly into the direction that I had in mind:
"That's infill territory, and a special infill at that.."
I never held an infill in my hands, so I only know them by their pictures. I am in awe of the craftsmanship and skill that goes into making them. But what exactly makes them to make you say "That's infill territory, and a special infill at that.."?
Some secret composition of the steel for their irons? A particular configuration of the mouth? The shape of the chipbreaker? The contact between the iron and the frog? The weight? The location of the center of gravity? The shape and the angle of the tote?
The rectangular crispness of the knob? Or are you supposed to use them under some kind of pyramidal dome (do the pyramids still have all those magic powers?...)
Feng Shui? An embedded crystal (or is it enough to have one around you neck?...). Mantra? Chant? Incense? Peyote (promise - just for the plane...)? Where was I?
I am getting the itch to make one or two for my own use, and I do not wish just to copy an existing design without some competent understanding of what is behind it.
Best wishes,
Metod
Bear in mind I'm miles outside my area of experience...just speculating here... buttt..
By definition, infills are a bit special.. there's no frog to adjust, most don't have adjusters, all in all they're a pretty basic tool, limited in what they can do... and there's their strength.. They specialise in working woods that other tools baulk at, and they do it with comparitive ease...
As to why.. that's purely down to technical expertese and the craftsmanship of the maker; selecting the optimum species for the stuffing, ensuring the grain orientation is perfectly in tune with the design of the plane, ensuring that the specific piece of material used for the infill is stable enough to rely on it behaving as if it were a metal while retaining the best charactoristics of the selected wood... Suitable woods for such a purpose have a common trait... mass and plenty of it...
Irrespective of how the body is made, be it dovetailed, welded or cast, by the time the infill is added and secured, the whole can only be described as "solid".. no potential for any freeplay between the blade and its bed.. If there's no place for it to deflect to, a blade's gonna have a real time deflecting in the cut..
Look at their geometry.. Norris tended to use a blade angle of 47 1/2 degrees, occasionally full york pitch, while others can be found pitched even higher.. Unusual angles right..?? Ask yourself... why...??
So.. they're solidly built, tons of mass to them, hi to very hi angles of incidence, mouthes invariably set on the fine side... (quitting there cos they're starting to make my L-N's sound plain)...
I mentioned "special"... Have a think about how you'd work a particularly difficult board using a tool with these charactoristics... The construction of the tool is telling you how it's best set for optimum results... in Scots, we've a saying... "ca canny"... roughly translated as proceed carefully.. Working a board witha tool set to take fine cuts is gonna take a while, right..?? That tool's gonna be in your hands for quite some time. Working with a tool of that mass will demand a fair amount of effort for a long period of time; look at the interface between the tool and the force moving it... If there's the slightest imperfection in the tote, it'll lead to discomfort. Over time that'll lead to tenderness that will distract from what you're trying to focus on.. What price a tote that has been crafted specifically to suit your hands...??
Enough to be getting on with...????Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
You just taught me some more. It did not cross my mind that the infill modifies the characteristic of the metal-only body. Obviously (now that you are pointing that to me) it provides for a better (more solid?) connection between the iron and the rest of the plane. In a metal plane this connection is accomplished through the not-large mating surface between the frog and the plane's sole. Is that it?
I also did not know that this is 'limited' use plane - meant to excel at specific tasks.
Since, as a hobbyist, I am only an occasional user, I doubt that I would ever become aware of the long term effect of the shape of the tote. It makes me wonder if the factory-left tote had enough extra wood left on, so that the individual owner could further refine it to fit his own hands. Or maybe it is a simple minded idea worth pursuing by the present day makers.
Maybe Philip could chime in. He was quick to replace his LV handle and knob to suit his hands.
Thanks for your pointers. I feel gooder now.
Best wishes,
Metod
I agree with Mike on this one. I've been in search for the ideal smoother for quite a while. I am extremely happy with my LN's #'s 4 (bronze), 4 1/2 yorkie, and YES, say what you will, but I use my 5 1/2 as a smoother all the time with great results. Also, I have had excellent results altering the microbevel on my low angle jack, also LN.
So far, the 4 1/2 and 5 1/2 have given me that polished finish better than any other tool. However, and here comes the "disclosure" part, the toughest wood I work with is either curly cherry or birdseye maple, neither of which are real difficult to tame with a 4 1/2. I have not given a tough exotic a whirl yet, as I frankly don't work with them that often. Occasionally, I'll use some Padauk or Ebony as an accent, but I've never made a table top out of either.
About 3 or so years ago, (jeez, I think it was more like 6, where's the time gone) I bought a Norris smoother on EBAY. I was lied to about condition, it was a pitted piece of crap for $400.00 US. I sharpened the blade, flattened the sole, and sold it 2 weeks later. So, I never got a chance to put it through it's paces, and I haven't gotten one again.
I've been staring at the Holtey, lately, as well as the Anderson Infills. One of these day, I'm gonna drop that piggy bank on the porch and hope it breaks, and get a trophy that, according to Mike, (and I totally AGREE with you buddy!!!!) will no longer ever be "mint" again, as I'm gonna put the sucker to work. Until then, my favorite is............ see above.
Jeff
Great thread, btw!
Jeff,
I too have (since mid January) a LN 4 1/2, and like it a lot. When I started thinking about adding a smaller (#4) size 'same quality' plane, all these thoughts/questions began crowding my mind. I pretty much settled my sights on LN 164.
I read somewhere (can't remember the post) that it falls a bit short in the iron stabilization department (as opposed to LV's with their side screws). I have some thoughts about some fettling - but am not sure if the plane would 'take it well'. I am about (in a week or so, after I do some more thinking) to check with the folks at LN for an advice. I do not want to be too smart on my own.
Best wishes,
Metod
Metod:
I seem to remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that infills have not only all of the characteristics already mentioned by Mike, but also that the infill wood dampens vibration from the plane passing over the planed wood as well as in the iron, thus reducing/eliminating chatter and chatter marks on the piece of wood being planed.
The more I learn about the woodworkers of the past, the increasingly more impressed I am with their knowledge and skill....there really is not much new under the woodworking sun..... just stuff that we have to re-learn.
Re the LN 164: I've been using mine for about 1-1/2 or 2 years now and have never had any problems with the iron shifting laterally. I think that the LV set screw idea is pretty cool and ingenious, but I suspect that it is also an elegant solution to a largely non-existent problem.....
Mike & Jeff:
We could form our own woodworking movement here: the 5-1/2 Neanderthal Smoothers, or something like that. (Sounds like some kind of a prison gang....) ;-)
Agreed: the #5-1/2 makes a superb smoother, especially for uncooperative woods, and to my hands, it just has a nice solid heft to it -- not too light & not too heavy. I suspect that the additional mass and width have a lot to do with the results...about as close as you can get to an infill smoother or panel plane without actually having one.
Mike:
Nice explanations on the infills. I learned quite a bit from that. Thanks.
Great thread so far!!
James
Just picked up on this conversation!
I'm sitting here looking at my part-constructed infill panel plane, and nodding in agreement with a lot of the wisdom in the posts above.
Mine is (so far) dovetailed, 5mm steel and 5mm brass, 300mm (12 inches) long, big meaty lever cap of bronze, lovely piece of Indian rosewood (purple, pink highlights, dense as ebony, more like metal than wood to machine), carried home from Australia, for the fore and aft infill, weighs a ton, and not yet done.
Why an infill - well, for all of the reasons listed above. Mass, precision, tight mouth, comfort, vibration-dampening ... They're 'friendly', fit for purpose, and craftsman-made, not manufactured.
Why you'd want to make your own is a separate discussion, and not many do - they're not rocket science (as Philip reminded me yesterday) but do take some measure of skill and energy to execute well.
Eleswhere on knots there's a discussion about what's really new under the (woodworking) sun ... and a sort of conclusion that not much is!
In my view, the new makers of infill planes (Holtey, Anderson and Marcou, to span the style field in no particular order) are applying a genuinly new level of skill and engineering to a very old tradition, and doing it brilliantly!
Malcolm
http://www.macpherson.co.nz
James,
"the infill wood dampens vibration " - I am glad that my wondering about the damping quality of wood has some merit. Speculating is one thing, but is the actual experience that carries the real weight.
"Re the LN 164: I've been using mine for about 1-1/2 or 2 years now and have never had any problems with the iron shifting laterally. I think that the LV set screw idea is pretty cool and ingenious, but I suspect that it is also an elegant solution to a largely non-existent problem....."
You just might have a point. I only read about the shift - maybe the writer was more taken by the 'elegant solution' and needed to have a suitable problem for it. I'll try to find that post.
Best wishes,
Metod
Metod and All,
Just some random ramblings here, as I have spent this day and yesterday doing a specific part of my current plane project-it requires fairly exhausting concentration, I find---- so I am not able to think too hard at the moment---BUT:-
1)Metod has a bee in his bonnet about those stabilising screws (;)-I suspect they are not in agreement with his (acute) sense of aesthetics. and I think Jeff is on the right track with his comment more or less.We know that L Valley are prone to gimmickisation as compared to the Other Company, but in their case I believe they also found it necessary as their set up does not really clamp the blade down with force-there is a mingey screw focussing force on a small area of the base, and the cap is made of Aloominoom I think-not as good as it could be.(However I am in no way belittling the Veritas b/u-a fine plane that is excellent value for money-that is why I have two of them-not rich enough for the Other Company yet). That is why I like to have a hefty bar joining to the sides for the cap to pressure against and spread the load over a greater area. Acttually I regard them as alignment aids, or added comfort for some customers so I decided to incorporate them to have the best of both worlds.
2)The mouth opening- gets tricky with regard to low angles, both in front of and behind the blade. I am still to be convinced that 5 thou's in front of the blade is going to do any better than say 10 thou,s or even 40thou,s-there are other factors affecting the achievement of a silky smooth surface.The trick is to get as many of those factors as possible all working together at once. But customers want a fine mouth so customers will get one, that is why I have made this type of adjuster for my planes-it allows the finest gap at the finest blade setting but can be opened by about 40thou,s for heavier cuts-with a low angle plane not much adjustment is required.
3)Here are some pictures showing how I make the mouth gap adjustable-note that surface grinding is still to be done, and then I will fine tune those adjusters.
I see that Comrade Michael has been a veritable font of information - truly Bonny Scotland must be the seat of learning in matters to do with planes- we must confer an award of some sort upon him.
Philip,
I agree, "we must confer an award of some sort upon him". How about a suitably framed certificate, accompanied by one of your planes (I am not saying which one...)?
Interesting, that LV's mingey screws are more of a solution of their own shortcomings rather than some big world problem.
Aloominoom cap? I thought (from the pictures) that it was solid brass painted black - to make it look more low key and thus justify lower prices than the Other Company.
In addition to getting valuable insights, I am also learning to be more critical of some of the 'evaluations' on the net. It must be much easier for somebody with much more woodworking experience to sort through the available information.
Best wishes,
Metod
This is a real interesting discussion and, I think, it points out the real problems of contemporary plane making.
All the discussion is about the planes and what the various features supposedly do. All the designing is apparently from the outside in and that's just exactly backwards. Reverse engineering of classic planes won't necessarily duplicate those planes' performance unless there's a thorough understanding of how all those features have an impact on the actual cutting properties of different woods.
When we start talking about wood fiber, cell structure and viscoelastic deflection ahead of a cutting edge; we may be well on the way to discussing effective plane design.
I recently had the opportunity to try out planes of many of the "best" plane makers from the US, Canada and Great Britain. I came away with the feeling that most of what's being made is the product of only reverse engineering without any actual consideration of the wood itself. There are some plane makers who really understand plane design and what's going on at the cutting edge of these tools, Thomas Lie-Nielsen and Konrad Sauer come to mind immediately. The kit makers, I believe, are firmly stuck in the outside/in reverse engineering process that leads to mediocrity. Overcoming that in producing a great plane from a kit will take some serious study and effort on the part of the builder.
I wish I had time to sit down and write a long post about what I've learned in 12 years of serious plane making and more than 25 years of working wood for a living. I just don't have time with my approaching deadlines and I'm left wondering how much it would be wise to give away.
Larry,
First, let me say that I always read your posts with great interest: they always make sense, and many of them bring out the finer, more subtle aspects of hand planes, plane-making, and hand planing, that obviously have come from many years of experimentation and experience. And, you are one of the relative few to have discussed much of the physics of planing in any detail (Jeff Gorman is the other one that immediately comes to mind.).
<<I wish I had time to sit down and write a long post about what I've learned in 12 years of serious plane making and more than 25 years of working wood for a living. I just don't have time with my approaching deadlines and I'm left wondering how much it would be wise to give away.>>
While I wouldn't want to encourage you to give away any of your trade secrets (that's your livelihood after all!!), I suspect that, if you were to write a book on hand planes, plane-making, and the use of hand planes, you could give the current authors who have written and published on the subject a bit of competition, or perhaps a new standard to shoot for. You would bring to your audience a different perspective (or at least one that has not been widely published in book form -- except for Cecil Pierce's couple of books): that of plane-maker and plane-user. I also suspect that a good many of us who participate in these forums would be eager customers of (another) well-written and informative book on planes, etc; I certainly would.
So....while understanding that you are swamped with running your business and all of the myriad other things you're responsible for....I, for one, would like to encourage you to give some serious thought to writing a book on planes, and using/making them. IMO a book written by someone of your knowledge, experience, and reputation would be quite well-received.
James
Larry,
Thanks for chiming in. I believe (well, that was my intention) that my questions were aimed much closer to understanding the design of a plane rather than just reverse engineering. You echo my sentiments that just by copying something does not make it equally good or better.
Plane kits must have (guessing that they are commercially viable) some appeal, especially to those with limited tooling. They should provide a good deal of satisfaction for being part of the process in plane's formation. Also, many craftsfolks only want their tools to perform well, while the questions of the design are of secondary or later importance.
I am always improvising and searching for mini-solutions to my woodworking situations - and that starts with thinking. On the other hand, I am a latecomer to asking questions about others' designs and solutions.
Best wishes,
Metod
< When we start talking about wood fiber, cell structure and viscoelastic deflection ahead of a cutting edge; we may be well on the way to discussing effective plane design >
Larry, I don't disagree with the above, and DO agree with your 'reverse engineering' comments. There does seem to be an assumption that re-creating the shape and materials will somehow remake the magic of the Edwardian (or pre-war anyway) infill planes made by Norris, Spiers and Mathieson ... and all the carftsman-made knockoffs.
I do think, however, that we run the risk of over-intellectualising plane making, and plane design. They're just a tool for presentinmg a sharp edge to a wood surface, and the variables are fairly well understood.
But - and here's my point - a plane is so much more than that! To me, they're the ultimate hand tool. With a plane - just a plane - you can bust a lovely piece of shimmering hardwood out of a lump of tree. They connect the woodworker with his medium much better than anything else (chisels excepted, maybe), and they capture the romance of craft woodworking and all the deep cultural significance that lies behind it.
The really cool thing about the new generation of plane making - however you define "the new makers" is that they combine function and form in a way that few other tools can. Lovely objects - shelf candy - with near-perfect functionality. That's the triumph of the modern makers!
Malcolm
http://www.macpherson.co.nz
Edited 3/9/2006 7:29 pm ET by Malcolm
Hi Malcolm,
In part, you wrote: "...The really cool thing about the new generation of plane making - however you define "the new makers" is that they combine function and form in a way that few other tools can. Lovely objects - shelf candy - with near-perfect functionality. That's the triumph of the modern makers!"
I don't have a problem with objets d'art but to my thinking what plane making is, or maybe should be, enabling other artisans. I think that's where the real beauty lies and it's where I get my greatest pleasure.
I think a plane should do its job very well but it should work with the craftsperson. Too much weight adds to the work and inhibits feed-back. I enjoy a light, agile tool that fits the hand. Planes should have a tactile quality that's pleasant, maybe almost sensual or sexual. They have to be comfortable to use.
Maybe my feelings come from my past work as a finish carpenter, cabinetmaker and architectural woodworking. I always tried to make my work blend into its surroundings and I avoided trying to overwhelm dominate spaces or people's lives. Yes, there needs to be substance in the design for the inquisitive eye or hand and the effect needs to be pleasant. I guess you could just say I prefer work that whispers rather than shouts.
Can you make planes like this in metal? You bet! While I've admired Wayne Anderson's acanthus leaf planes his little smooth plane blew me away. It felt right, worked great and, given its small size, its weight give it a perfect presence in the hand.
I think there is a reason that Lie-Nielsen is the gold standard of today's planes. He understands how planes work and what they need to do while offering a very functional variety. He also knows quality. My Lie-Nielsen planes aren't polished; I'm proud of the wear, dings and the areas of tarnish where my sweating hands held them while they did their work. They earned every sign of wear and use they show. I think they look better today than when they came shiny out of the box.
I've found a lot of the old planes have sometimes obscure functions built into them. My years working with the tools is peppered with little epiphanies, "Oh, that's why this plane is made that way." I've enjoyed growing into the capability of my planes and the knowledge old plane makers left for me. Those old planes were highly evolved. I get a thrill of passing that on especially to newer woodworkers. But then that comes under the heading of enabling others. I'm pretty cautious about changing traditional designs or features because I sure haven't learned everything those old tools have to teach. That's what is "really cool" about traditional plane making.
Larry, can you spare some time to explain what you mean by reverse engineering: I think I may have a shrewd idea, but when it comes from the horses mouth....
Now I have to come to grips with you, in a manner of speaking. I was surprised to learn that you were seduced by W. Anderson's little smoother, bearing in mind your previous sentiments on shelf candy, jewellery and crows. The mere appearance of that plane would focus my attention, and I would want to satisfy myself that it could work well and feel good in the hand. I am curious to know what you think of the use of ivory in that application-surely it has no practical value , but is a "feel good factor" for some people and or it has a jewel like attraction. I know that W. Anderson is a successful knife maker and therefore well aware of the need to satisfy the whims of customers, within reason.
I am having difficulty in reconciling your statement "I came away with the feeling that most of what's being made is the product of only reverse engineering without any actual consideration of the wood itself".Surely people are not just making planes without any idea of how their product is supposed to perform on "their" timbers? In my knowledge the big names today are mostly with a fine woodworking background for a foundation, although this may not be true for J. Economaki,but his product is "well engineered and designed"-quote.
I think it would be good if you did sit down and write a small thesis on what you have learned during 12 years of planemaking-how about it?Philip Marcou
"I know that W. Anderson is a successful knife maker and therefore well aware of the need to satisfy the whims of customers, within reason."
I wonder if you're thinking of some other Anderson? I don't think Wayne A. makes, nor ever has made, knives for sale ... He and I recently had an email exchange about Randall Knives in Orlando, and at least that was the impression I got from Mr. Anderson.
Clay
Miami, I think you may be right. I have been trying to find the link that put me onto a biography of one Anderson-it was on Knots.There was a web site with some good looking knives.....Philip Marcou
My fault Philip - I pointed out http://www.andersoncustomknives.com as a web site with some really cool metalwork!
That Anderson has posted some cool tutorials. Anyone interested in toolmaking with metal will get value from time spent there. I've taken quite a lot from it.
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Thanks Malcolm-maybe he will graduate onto making planes now, <g>.
Well, Hock, a knifemaker, is half way there with his plane blade making....
Now the point of this message-today a sales rep dealing in titanium and alloys such as nickel silver called. There are three very nice things about Titanium-it is eternally good looking, very light and works nicely. As every "sole" under the sun is different(that's why humans actually look different) I would like to be prepared for a customer who says he wants a light plane-I am wondering what the cognoscenti planeophiles think of the use of this material?
It is horribly expensive compared to even stainless steel, so I am waiting for a quote from that sales rep.
Some people have to admit that there are a lot of crows out there.Philip Marcou
P.S-where are the tutorials- I'm too thick to find them.
Edited 3/13/2006 4:26 am by philip
Here's the best tutorial
http://members15.clubphoto.com/thomas633455/2739694/guest.phtml
Philip - I'm very interested in working with titanium (and other sheet metals) - can you send me the details of your salesman please?
Cheers
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Did you notice that little belt grinder there? Very adaptable machine for woodworkers as well....
He is cheating by using a surface grinder-the old boys did all with a belt grinder and a selection of contact wheels (;)Philip Marcou
He's very well set up - one of the tutorials is a tour of his shop.
http://members15.clubphoto.com/thomas633455/937511/guest.phtml
Envy!
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Malcolm,
Do you mean there are tutorials at http://www.andersoncustomknives.com, or Tom Anderson has posted them elsewhere?
I looked there, and found links to pictures of his stock and to his 2004 show dates, but nothing else - ?
Let me know?
Thanks,
Clay
At his website. Here:
http://members15.clubphoto.com/thomas633455/2739694/guest.phtml
for example (this is the best one)
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Here are some planes with characteristics, seem recently at a vintage day for machines, engines etc. All used to hell and back....Philip Marcou
What was the event, Philip?
Were the woodworking tools just on display?
Some of them look very 'characteristic'!
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
The event was "Vintage Day-Karake". Vintage farm tractors, machinery,trucks, cars , motorbikes and tools.
The tools belonged to members of the Vintage Tool Collectors Club-not for sale, in theory.Philip Marcou
Philip, One of the best examples of reverse engineering is what's going on with the bevel up planes right now, Stanley's old #62 and #164 reborn as the ultimate in versatility. We've been over this before, Philip, those planes have their uses but become very limited in what they're capable of when used as some claim. Depth of cut limitations, short edge life, sharpening and/or cambering difficulty, are a few of the problems.Another is casually tossing a Norris adjuster into a plane design. Most of the Norris fans I know are fascinated by the adjuster but will admit, when pressed, there are real problems with them. Fine adjustment on my old Norris was done with screw cap pressure which deflected the sole through the wooden bed support. The lateral adjuster is all but nonfunctional. One can't even adjust cutting depth with the lever cap tightened without fear of stripping out the fine threads. Throw this adjuster into another plane and suddenly all the problems go away? Buy that right after you start buying bridges.This reverse engineering isn't new, it goes way back. A good example is when Leonard Bailey, Justus Traut and the rest of the Stanley subcontractor designers were translating wooden planes to metal for mass production. Like Singer (sewing machines), McCormick (farm equipment) and others, Leonard Bailey was transferring his Government funded mass production experiments to peace-time uses. These guys were all metal workers and, those making planes, missed many of the more subtle features. Tall sides for a tactile plumb and level indication is one of the more important features they missed. The human body has an amazingly accurate sense of plumb and level. Think about it, you can carry a completely full glass of liquid across a room without spilling. This is especially true when you just trust your senses and don't look at the glass or think about it. Just walking takes a considerable feel for plumb. When I'm planing small critical things that must have parallel faces and I get off, I close my eyes and trust my sense of plumb to get back where I need to be. I can do this because my hands are situated on a wooden plane with tall sides for a reference. Ol' Leonard Bailey lost that for metal plane users.How do I feel about Wayne Anderson's use of Ivory in his little smoother? It doesn't bother me, the vast majority of Wayne's planes are sold to collectors to sit on shelves. Wayne is serving a completely different market. It's not that his planes don't function incredibly well, they do. I don't have a problem with tool collectors, it's just not the market I most enjoy working for. I do depend on the research and writings that come out of the tool collecting community and I'm pleased Wayne has found a good market there.A thesis? Well, Norman Franz and William McKenzie earned PhDs for their work and had free access to the scientific equipment to test and verify their theories. What I'd like to do is extend their work but with real-World cutting geometry and on a much smaller scale when it comes to the properties of the wood being cut. Then mix in John Siau's work on moisture movement in wood as it relates to wooden planes and the wood being planed. Let's not forget an anatomic study as it relates to bench woodworking or the history of wooden planes and their uses including some of the more esoteric forms like side rounds, snipe bills and side snipes. I have lots of theories about these and more but I'd sure like to see them proven before I start pontificating about them. If I'd had my experience of today 30 years ago and a big trust fund, I'd probably be doomed to be writer and over-educated teacher. As it is now, I'm mostly dealing with production and generating paydays. Writing here doesn't move me much in a direction that meets my priorities.It's funny Philip, you would probably appreciate a wooden sash fillister ( http://www.planemaker.com/misc/sash.jpg ) and yawn at a matched left and right hand pair of simple old side beads ( http://www.planemaker.com/misc/beads.jpg ). The sash fillister has lots of eye appeal but the real technical difficulty is in the side beads. You think John Economaki's variable pitch plane is amazing but a side bead cuts at all the pitches at once and does it on each side of the bead. Then it straightens and ejects the shaving without choking. Don't forget both planes need to be able to work on the same piece of molding. Try making an 1/8" side bead, the size includes the quirk so the bead is 3/32" wide, or even a 3/4" side bead. There's so much more to these apparently simple planes than meets the eye and they're the technical achievements I‘m attracted by.
Larry, thanks for the response and the links. I am trying to keep it short as you have said that writing here is a low priority activity.
Re Norris type adjusters,i.e the ones with two sets of threads:bearing in mind the fact that the cap is pressurised by a hefty screw with a square thread in some(modern) cases I would have thought it natural that the adjustment would only be done after slacking off a little on the screw-does not seem like a shortfall to me, but I agree that the double threaded version is delicate and requires care in use. Lateral adjustment?-well how much does one require, bearing in mind that one is using a smoother?
So what is wrong with a single thread Norris type i.e dowel amd peg? Nowt, as far as I can see, so I have adapted that for my planes and still expect the user to slack off on the cap screw as it is not possible to move the blade when it is under pressure. Neither do I expect anyone to have the strength to strip a 1/4"28tpi thread either on the stem or in the 20mm threaded brass dowel (or should I be using bronze?).
Reverse engineering is not a new phenomenon as you have said, but I note that even re-inventing the wheel brings some progress at least-look at bicycle wheels for example, or compare a Stanley #62 with a Veritas version.
Things go in circles-O1 is not flavour of the month at the moment but I predict it will be back....not to mention D2.Philip Marcou
Philip
Strictly speaking reverse engineering means taking a manufactured product apart to figure out how it was made ... usually with the intention of making a copy or derivative. That's what the Shepherd guys mean when they talk about reverse engineering historical planes.
On adjusters - the Norris style has survived in a number of modern versions, especially on Veritas and various small planes. In the pure form it does have limitations, and setting a plane up so that tightening the cap doesn't affect the position of the iron takes a bit of attention to detail. It's a good test of make quality. If the blade beds well, especially againt a throat plate, and the adjuster is working properly, it shouldn't move when tightened down.
I prefer the single thread versions because they have less backlash. If the blade is sharpened square, you only need a tiny amount of lateral adjustment - a few mm at the end of the stem - but a tiny amount is a lot better than none at all!
Larry's point about 'tactile plumb and level' is very interesting. The new Swiss-designed Rali planes have a radical form factor that includes tall sides and a strikingly square shape. I'm tinkering with sketches of a single-handed infill version ... maybe! If they weren't so expensive I'd buy one and do some reverse engineering!
Malcolm
http://www.macpherson.co.nz
Edited 3/11/2006 4:52 am ET by Malcolm
Malcolm, I don't think that is quite what Larry is getting at ....
To be blunt, I don't think much of the few double thread adjusters that I have seen, and even less of effecting things by varying torque on that cap screw. When I see a square thread or an acme thread to me it conveys the idea that the designer intends a huge load to be put through there-I can't see how that is necessary.In addition to your points re the ramp and bed I want the cap to bear against the blade evenly-that's why I asked you to check the fit on those caps I made for you.
Yep, single thread is good, I believe.Other than turning a "funny" thread on the lathe, I selected the 1/4" 28tpi UNC because it is fine enough without being too delicate and one can get left hand taps and dies if necessary-why get all complicated with micro adjustability etc?
If reverse engineering of any type is not good should we not have some forward engineering to impose our will on the timber?Philip Marcou
Philip
"I want the cap to bear against the blade evenly"
My recent experimentations are telling me to take 'the cap to bear against the blade evenly' with a grain of salt. I believe (strongly enough to 'waste' some more time) that there are better 'configurations'.
Come to think, reverse engineering is an efficient way to get started. Just follow up with asking, if there is some space left for improvements.
Best wishes,
Metod
Larry,
"short edge life"
Do you have any insights/explanations why bevel up bedded irons suffer from a short edge life? Are those irons too thick or made/treated fifferently?
Best wishes,
Metod
Metod,Here's what I think is happening. What dulls a plane iron in normal use is wear over the edge and the top surface as the shaving passes. Heat is a catalyst to metal wear and there's actually quite a bit of friction generated heat in the cutting process so the passing shaving actually speeds the dulling. When wood is cut it deflects ahead of the cutting edge which can be limited or increased with the angle of the cutting edge. If you increase the bevel angle of a chisel or plane iron you increase the resistance to the cut and the viscoelastic deflection of the wood. This deflection is a great property for woodworkers and can be used to a lot of advantage. One of its side-effects is that there must be adequate clearance angle to allow the wood fibers to spring back. The 12º of low angle planes isn't enough and you can even feel the pressure of the spring back when you try to take a deeper cut. You can't get that deeper cut, the wood under the blade is pushing up on the back of the iron and limiting penetration.Even with a light cut, the wood is rubbing on the back of the iron. The shaving is still rubbing on the front of the iron and you've effectively doubled the friction and heat over normal plane set up. Not only are these steep bevel angles more difficult to sharpen, the increased friction limits the life of the edge.I can't imagine a jointer or a fore (what a jack plane is traditionally used for) being effective with a limited depth of cut. It's like a 3/4" beading plane, similar to what I mentioned previously, being limited to a .001" cut--I can't imagine a woodworker wanting to take 700 passes with any plane, to accomplish any task, more than once. For most planing situations, the goal is to remove some wood and to do it efficiently.If you want a low angle plane to work well, stay with more a traditional sharpening geometry and avoid those real obtuse bevels.
Larry,
you sure opened my eyes a bit (considerably?) wider. On another thread I asked whether different bevel angles with the same pitch (I understood that as the angle between the upper surface - microbevel for the bevel up bedding - and the sole) call for different pushing forces. and the answer was 'no'. As I do not have a low bedding plane, I can't do my own trials. Anyway, that 'no' answer implies that the clearance angle makes no difference. Now I am getting it from you, that it does.
I do not mean to disrespectful to the 'no's, but your explanation sure makes (to me, at least) very much sense to me. For one thing, the faster dulling of the low bedded angle is a (empirical) fact. It also seems to collaborate the findings (from another site - will look up the source), that the 'wear bevel' occurs on both sides of the iron's wedge.
I forgot about this bit of info - probably because I did not understand it from the macro-geometric visualisation. My ignorance of the micro-properties of wood (cell springback and such) sure shows. I am very much aware (pat on the back...) of the cell compressibility, but did not think that the resulting springback is of appreciable significance.
I wonder how much does the concavity of the Japanese wooden planes have to do with this compressibility/springback. It does increase the pressure right in front of the iron - to compress the wood or just to prevent a premature separation (riving) of the cut cells.
I really appreciate the time you spend in sharing your insight.
Edit:http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/
This is the site where I read about WEAR BEVEL (capitalized in the article).
Best wishes,
Metod
Edited 3/11/2006 6:06 pm ET by Metod
I make a lot of my own tools and machine tooling, much of what I want isn't available commercially. The short version is I learned in a very frustrating way how much force is involved in viscoelastic spring-back in wood and how important clearance angles are.Don't get me wrong, low angle planes are very useful and are great for end grain and low density woods. You can do things with them steeper angled planes won't allow. Just don't try to convert them to something they aren't.I don't know much about Japanese planes. At one time I did start to consider them but I was turned off by a lot of the stuff I read about them. The concept that only certain masters deserved good tools, the claim that using the wrong sharpening stone would cause the edge to crumble but then you were supposed to hammer out the bevel, and the idea that you should work on a planing beam on the floor were some of what sent me in a different direction. I'm not into any mystique about woodworking and, by then, I had installed thousands of feet of baseboard and didn't find crawling around on the floor for no reason appealing.
Larry,
What caught my eyes with the Japanese planes is that they provide three small regions of contact (the toe, heel, and the front of the mouth. This means that the pressure at those regions is greater than when the hole sole is in contact with the wood being planed.
From what I read about them, it seems that it takes a constant attention to keep them properly adjusted.
Best wishes,
Metod
Larry
This is one of the most informative and insightful discussions I've seen on knots, and one that has implications for all of us.
I'd guess 90% of all woodworkers, worldwide, routinely use a hand plane. In commercial shops I've visited, if there are any hand tools visible, there will be a few planes - even if only a few block planes for removing sharp edges quickly.
A plane is the tool most learners buy first.
There's an international market in collectables, and the priciest hand tools are planes.
The questions about what works well - when hand planng - and why, are fundamentally important to tens of thousands of people.
I hope the point is made: Big market; lots of market development potential; high prices for good tools; new opportunities.
Where am I going with this?
There's a big gap in the information market! Why do people keep asking about what plane to buy? Because there's no authoritative source that provides the answer!
There's an opportunity to publish an up to date book (or maybe something on the internet - a White Paper?) that will drive purchasing decisions. I've read your reservations about you being the writer (too busy, trade secrets ...) but I can't think of anyone better qualified!
Larry. Do us all a favour. Set the agenda in planemaking for the next five years. Write the paper we all need!
Malcolm http://www.macpherson.co.nz
Malcolm,
Go over as many of Larry's and Philip's posts as you can (are there any other reputable plane makers posting?). Make notes, and you'll practically have a useful 'book'. You do not need to create a lot of text, just jot down the pertinent parts.
Besides, the more you do, the more discerning you'll become about what is pertinent/valuable and what is not. When I reread the older posts, I often notice some details that did not make much sense at the earlier readings.
Best wishes,
Metod
Edited 3/12/2006 10:53 am ET by Metod
Malcolm,I don't have many trade secrets but I do have the best customers I could ever hope for. I'm way behind and I suspect there are even limits to my customers' patience. Unless I want to go the way of Shepherd Tool (see their web site) I need to stay focused on my business.There are a number of people who could write what you're looking for with a lot less bias than me. Keep an eye on Chris Schwarz, I suspect you'll find plenty of what you're looking for.There's a real need for what I do. Did you see Steve Latta's recent article on cock beading? Not only is Steve a talented craftsman who's working to pass on the skills, he's a nice guy. Did you see what he had to go through to do cock beading? It looked like a time eating hassle to me as well as being risky to himself and his work. With just a cock bead fillister and a cock bead plane, his effort could have been so much safer, easier and quicker. No Malcolm, I've got a lot of work yet to do before I switch focus.
Edited 3/12/2006 6:37 pm by lwilliams
Fair enough. Perhaps we all need to lobby Taunton to commission a writer/writers to put together the definitive book?
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Hi,
This is one of those gems that make this site worth it.
I have recently been useing a stanley 4 1/2 set pretty fine as a smoother. No idea of bevel angle because I have never measured one but suspect its about 40*. This gets prety hard to push after a certain point and I have noticed what looks like a small area of blue in the centre rear of the mouth (been there since I got the plane) that on an edge tool I would assume this was due to over heating.
My eldest son (12) was given a currugated version of the same plane for Christmas (my brother didnt look at the sole until he started to wrap it) that I was cleaning up yesterday. I had the thought that perhaps part of the resistance was due to sole/wood friction; and that the C would be a better choice for the finish work.
I do accept that I might be able to solve al of this by sharpening the old coffin smoother, but does the above make sense in addition to your comments?
david
David,It's possible you're getting a lot of heat building up on the leading edge of the mouth of your #4 1/2, if that's where you're getting the color. It's hard to say without actually seeing it. Often you'll get fine dust deposited on an iron where the shaving doesn't brush it off and you may see scorching of that dust. I don't think a corrugated bottom will make much difference but I can't say for sure. I do know that the leading edge of the mouths of metal planes wear pretty quickly due to heat and I've seen heavily used Stanleys with a badly rounded mouth and severely worn cap iron.If you grind your iron at 25º and hone at 30º you'll generate less heat than a 40º bevel angle.A friend told me of his attempt to remouth a Stanley wood bottomed plane (some call them "transitionals" but that's misleading, they were actually introduced after the iron planes) with brass. He expressed amazement at the amount of heat generated. Because the brass was insulated by wood, it didn't have a whole plane to act as a heat sink. He said the brass got hot enough to raise a blister if you touched it.
Edited 3/13/2006 9:43 pm by lwilliams
Thanks,
Must have made a mistake, the bluing is behind the iron, a patch about 1/2" wide. I rather suspect that the same causes are on show. Actually, this 'damage' predates my ownership, and I will finish the corrugated plane anyway because I like the look and it belongs to my son who I wish to encourage.
I agree with your comments (later post) about having to look after customers first, but thanks for the input here.
Dave
Thanks Larry
I don't think we're differing here, are we? I agree with what you write.
Perhaps my argument is obscured by my enthusiam! If you loved that little ebony and ivory smoother, then I guess you've proved my point. Modern planemaking - at it's best, wood or metal, bespoke or L-N - marries form and function in a way that's never been done as well before.
My opinion!
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
After reading all of these posts and a few others it seems there is two ways of looking at planes. One school is heavy with a good blade (infill or a Lie-Neilsen or clifton) or light with a heavy blade (Japanese or Kernov style plane) Having used both a Lie-Neilsen #4 which I love and a Kernov style plane which I made (and love because of that) I think you can get wonderful results from both. Anyway I have seen your smothers on this site and they sure are nice looking the only problem is that they are in your shop and not mine:).Thanks
Thanks Troy!
> the only problem is that they are in your shop and not mine <
If I didn't have a day job, I'd be doing something about that. One of my medium-term ambitions is to make planes to commission. I'm not good enough yet, and would need some better machinery to do so effciently, but the prospect is out there.
Cheers
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Metod, I'm glad you started this thread. You asked a different question than I did in my post, however it triggered a wonderful response of information.
Ron
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.shtml
BugBear
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled