I am following up on other tread with more questions. I am wondering if some of the stuff that appears here would be desirable for an in depth article about plane designs. We like to moan and groan how FWW doesn’t have ‘advanced’ articles anymore. Here I see a chance for some remedy.
I am not into writing – nor could I back it up with my own experience/competence – so I hope that somedy else would give it a thought.
Many of us like our planes to perform well and be beautiful to boot. A while ago I came across a sneering remark (not sure if on Knots or somewhere else) about planes to be beautiful. I am still wondering how beautiful, elegant or classy are the woodworking creations of the author of that remark.
a) There was one (Pete’s) post on the other tread mentioning a problem with the edge retention on BU irons. Any more info about it?
b) Somebody pointed out (where?) that BU planes have lower center of gravity (it never crossed my mind to notice it). I see a plus in that. Is there really one?
c) Which angle ‘determines’ how hard it is to push a plane (bevel up or down): the pitch (the angle between the upper surface of the iron and the plane’s sole) or the bevel angle of the iron?
d) Would, please, somebody draw a ‘force diagram’ for various plane configurations/pitches/bed angles. I remember somewhat those diagrams from high school physics (for wedges and inclines – and other suffering inducing situations). Can those forces (or their ‘pieces’) predict the tendency to chatter? Can they point to anything else?
e) Is the (traditional) vertical tote/hadle really more ergonomic than some horizontal oval type version (such as handles/knobs on some of the belt and random orbit sanders). The remark about the lower center of gravity is, in part, responsible for this question. The other part comes from contemplating Krenow style planes (hey, they are bevel up).
f) The front knob on some (typically infill) planes are sure/rectangular with ‘sharp’ corners. Is this an ergonomic miracle or is it because those planes wind up, by and large, as collectors’ items, not to be (honestly) used, but merely seen?
g) The front of the mouth (a recent FWW article – I can look it up) is ‘supposed’ to be filed a few degrees from the verical – to form a less than 90 deg angle with the sole. Would not a mouth parallel to the upper surface of the iron be more suitable for a lesser tearout? This way one could lower the pitch (for the same quality of the surface) and thus reduce the magnitude of the force needed to push the plane (remember that some of us do not have robust arms, the ladies probably more so than the gents). I can imagine that casting for such a mouth could be problematic, but easy for the wooden planes.
h) Could somebody write about various steels for the plane irons, their pluses and minuses and the trade-offs that need to be made? I can make some sense from Hock’s page, but there are more types than A2 and high carbon. It would take me to much time to gather (and understand) the available information – when somebody can present a better account in few minutes.
Ok, my questions might be of little relevance, as long as a plane works fine (and is not ugly…), but if a designer is not asking them…
Those of you who ever made a plane, please share you thoughts and experiences – and thanks for your willingness.
Best wishes to all,
Metod
Replies
Krenov style planes are bevel down, hence the chipbreakers. In terms of plane shapes, it is whatever suits you. Japanese planes are just flat blocks of wood. You can use the Krenov construction techniques to build nearly any shape of plane you want. Keep in mind they all start as a glued up rectangle and are then shaped to make them more ergonomic. My best jointer is a razee laminated like a Krenov, but finished out with a traditional closed tote mortised into the curve of the razee heel. The ramp is at 40 degrees instead of 45 based on some research I did into old wooden jointers. The plane works great on long grain sides as well as end grain. I also have a laminated scrub plane modeled on a Norris infill. Made it entirely out of red oak. It is heavy, dense, and slices through the hardest wood I can find like it was soft butter. Get a copy of "Making and Mastering Wood Planes" and go at it. You will be surprised to find that you can make yourself a plane that rivals anything you can buy.
Gdblake,
Thanks for encoragement. I do have a copy of David Finck's book. It is just that, for some time the planemaking is not 'on my horizon'. I have a fairly limited time for woodworking - and it needs to go into the pieces that my dear wife 'commissions'. She'd rather that I buy what I 'need' and get on with the project. Besides, I do enjoy making furniture, so a (temporary?) plane-making deprivation is not a source of self-pity. But I sure am nosy about their design.
Now, if I wouldn't "waste?" my time here on Knots...darn, it is a quality time!
Best wishes,
Metod
I won't pretend t have all the info you're looking for, but I can give my slant on some of it...
a/ edge retention... I can't say I've noticed any disadvantages in my 2 most heavily used bevel ups... both are capable of being worked hard all day without need to resharpen...
b/ I reckon heft is a far greater advantage than C of G... get a heavy plane moving over difficult grain and momentum will tackle pretty much anything with authority.
c/ angle of incidence (uppermost surface of the blade to the surface of the board)
d/ force diagram...?? got me stumped there...
e/ you need to think about / model where the force propelling the plane is coming form... look at the linkages involved then determine the stronger / weaker ones... you'll get there....
f/ if you appreciate infills, one of the worst experiences you can put yourself through is listening to someone crowing about how good their new Sauer & Steiner looks, feels and performs... it's sickening... lucky sods.!!! I can't explain the ergonomics, but evidently they work pretty well..
g/ a mouth profile along the lines that you're suggesting will close the escape route of the shaving as it curls up and away from the blade / chip breaker; closure will result in a blockage in a fine set mouth. The traditional profile allows the shaving to escape regardless of how finely set the mouth is and how close the chip breaker is set to the edge of the blade.
h/ hmmmmmmm... I remember seeing a bar chart that explained this, chart demonstrated the difference in 3 properties that a blade needs, and how different grades of steel favour some properties more than the others... canna remember where I saw it but I'll have a look...
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
Thanks. This was much faster than by doing my own experiments (especially the pitch and the mouth comfiguration.
Much appreciated.
Best wishes,
Metod
anytime.. but like I said, that was simply my observasions... you should try to get a few more to get a broader picture... one swallow doesn't make a summer... an all that...
;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Metod,
Take a look at this site. It will give you some pretty good answers to many of your (technical) questions:
http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/planeindex.htm
James
James,
Thank you too. Dumb me. I have this page bookmarked - but I visited it last time several months ago, way before I got interested in all these plane related technicalities. Definitely worth going back.
It is funny, how we process information: when we read something that has to do with our current focus, we don't register those components (of the information) that address some other aspects. It is not the first time that this happened to me.
Best wishes,
Metod
Metod, Glad I was able to help a bit. One of the fun things, for me, about woodworking, especially with hand tools, is that the theoretical knowledge is very handy to have, but the actual working of the wood is another entire learning curve -- putting that theory into practice: hand-eye coordination, training the muscles, getting the "feel" for what the tool is doing, learning the subtle "tweaks" that make the difference between good results and great results, etc. Lots of fun, and it helps keep it interesting over the long run. I think that hand planes are my favorite hand tools, and even though I have a fair bit of knowledge about them, there is still a mountain of information and skill out there that I haven't even come close to touching yet. That site is one of my favorite; I go back and re-read what's in there fairly frequently, just as a good refresher. Cheers!James
Metod, I see that others have come up with food for thought, most notably Brother Michael of Aberdeen Scotland: although I would like to know what timber he is working that may allow him to shave it all day without having to re-sharpen-A2 to D2 to O2 to Z2 steel or not(;).
The question of different steels and their properties is a vast subject all too often steeped in mythology as well, not ot mention the question of assorted recipes for heat treatments, the "secrets" of which enable certain Oriental gentlemen to make and sell ceremonial swords for plus one hundred thousand bucks.------I just like to keep in mind that the established steels like O1 are widely used with good effect for good reason. D2 is another work horse, strangely not flavour of the month at the moment, but I bet one of these days it will make a come back. M2 has been mentioned as a potential plane blade contender-but I'm sure it would be expensive, and folk would have to put away their traditional stones and "stoop" to the frowned upon diamond plates (which I love).
What is so magical about A2? Not a lot to my mind-in fact it fills the gap betwwen O1 and D2, looks seductive because of chrome content and is expensive to buy from the illustrious Canadians-oh yes brother Michael is enamoured of it as well. I think the heat treatment process is of more importance than the steel type , somehow. A lot of trade-offs...
Center of gravity? I dunno, but I favour the lower profile of some of these planes. As Michael says, heft is good too, although he would have to make a compromise when working all day without stopping to re sharpen (;)(;).
Force diagrams? If you are talking of the Resolution of Forces that is all I remember from my school days, just the term. Perhaps Larry Williams or the United Nations can enlighten us . Oh yes, from my point of view, I like to be sure that the nice thick bevel up blade is well forced down onto its bed via a hefty bronze cap, which bears against a substantial cross pin of at least 9mm diameter tool steel. Also the bed itself is well married to the sole, backed up by the handle plate to prevent any movement whatsoever-if any one has read this far I can provide a picture rather than a Forces diagram to explain further....
Regarding the mouth format you are suggesting-unless one opens it up slightly from the sole upwards on the front face, there will be problems as Michael says-so one might as well stick to the usual format. Also it would be a bit more difficult to machine
Thinking on knobs and totes-I tend to favour mild variations of the traditional Stanley/Bailey-they look good and are practical in use, plus I have never ever dropped one of these....But one of those Norrisfied infills, with the pile on the front? I am underwhelmed....If and when I make this type I will be in serious innovation mode.
On a new angle altogether-I am cooking up a cheaper to produce plane, thinking screw and pin together bevel up steel and brass maybe semi infill-what do folks think? I would like to think that the illustrious Australian neighbours may be moved to evn buy one of these, especially as Karl Holtey tells me he has no joy in selling his masterpieces to that tribe.
One more item on the agenda, and that is your question on which performs better, b/u or b/d assuming equal cutting angles etc- this has gone predictably unanswered-unless one wants to weigh in factors like the co-efficient of visco elasticity.I is interesting to note that the fabulous creation from J. Economopoulos/BridgeCity is bevel up. I would dearly like to try that one out.....
I would like to know what timber he is working that may allow him to shave it all day without having to re-sharpen-A2 to D2 to O2 to Z2 steel or not(;).
My guess would be Cheddar, quartersawn Cheddar.
David C
LOL..... I dearly wish David... my long outa practice arms and dicky ticker would welcome the easy ride..
Right now I'm working oak...
To be fair... I took advantage of the limitations of the question in my answer... The question asked about edge retention in bevel ups... The bulk of my planing is done with bevel downs, so consequently my bevel ups stay good n sharp for ages..
But even that's not being entirely fair to them.... case in point...
I do all my shooting exclusively with a #9... My jigs are configured in a way that allows me to plane both left and right handed, in effect giving me double the use of the sharpened edge. Hand on heart, I can say with confidence that a full day of shooting sticks and panels for a project without sharpening the blade (other than a quick hone first thing in the morning) is well within the plane's capabilities, and the planed edges produced at the end of the day look just as crisp and smooth as those at the start.
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Edited 2/24/2006 3:19 pm by Midnight
oh yes brother Michael is enamoured of it as well.
jealousy's a terrible thing... innit...??? ;)
For me, it's the ideal steel.. I don't have shop space for them hi falutin mechanised twirly grindy things.. From a safety aspect, one stray spark could prove cataclismic...
Like my planing, my sharpening is all handraulic. I overcome the additional hardness of the A2 by using stones ideally suited for it, japanese water stones; fast, quiet, hassle free and I can put them back on the shelf outa the way when I'm done with em...
btw I know I've plenty habbits... mostly bad at that... but a monk's one...???????? It'd never be convinsing.. wayyyyyy too much hair...
As Michael says, heft is good too, although he would have to make a compromise when working all day without stopping to re sharpen
Ahhh well... I've been working on a formulae for that... trying to form one by extrapolating form observasions is ummmmm...... depressing...
for examole.. actual shop time... is the square root of the sum of percieved shop time / the square of honeydo's x visitors... change that to visitors squared if they bring ankle biters with em...
re compromise....
all day without resharpening doesn't equate to all day at the bench...
handraulics + hardwoods x premature decripidation = frequent enforced breaks through the onset of knackerdness... knackered defined as the overpowering requirement to collapse into the nearest armchair until the heartrate gets back down to tripple didgets... symptoms include leaden arms, rubber legs and excessive epedermal leakage... long term symptoms incluse questioning sanity on a frequent basis...Ideally... knackeredness is best remedied by regular periods of pampering by buxom wenches... meanwhile, back in the real world yer lucky t get a quick cuppa from SWMBO...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
<<for examole.. actual shop time... is the square root of the sum of percieved shop time / the square of honeydo's x visitors... change that to visitors squared if they bring ankle biters with em...>>
<<handraulics + hardwoods x premature decripidation = frequent enforced breaks through the onset of knackerdness... knackered defined as the overpowering requirement to collapse into the nearest armchair until the heartrate gets back down to tripple didgets... symptoms include leaden arms, rubber legs and excessive epedermal leakage... long term symptoms incluse questioning sanity on a frequent basis...Ideally... knackeredness is best remedied by regular periods of pampering by buxom wenches... meanwhile, back in the real world yer lucky t get a quick cuppa from SWMBO...>>
Too funny!!! Good to see you back...I presume that your employer has relented on the 70- and 80-hour work weeks?
Cheers!! (hoisting a wee dram of Islay single malt....)
James
Good to see you back...I presume that your employer has relented on the 70- and 80-hour work weeks?
Things got worse... I'd to endure a 4 week posting into deepest Englandshire... the things I gotta do t make a living.... sheeshh...Right now things are quieter.. calm before the storm I suspect... silly season cometh and this one's gonna be bad...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,<< I'd to endure a 4 week posting into deepest Englandshire.>> Sounds like something from a horror story.... "There I was, in deepest Englandshire, on a dank and murky full-moon night, when, all of a sudden......" LOL<<the things I gotta do t make a living.... >> Exactly...the PITA nonsense up with which one must put, in order to fund one's hobbies.....not to mention chow and roof.... :-)Cheers!James
Actually James, I think Brother Michaels real problem is the fact that the poms are still stamping on selected bottles of whisky the words " Produced in Scotland under British government supervision".
How bad is that?Philip Marcou
Philip,<<.... is the fact that the poms are still stamping on selected bottles of whisky the words " Produced in Scotland under British government supervision". How bad is that?>> Pretty bad....I'd venture to say that the Scots (and Irish, too, for that matter....) have been distilling whisky long enough to be able to do it without British (or any other) gov't supervision..... Hell...we've been distilling in the back woods of this country without gummint supervision or revenuer interference for over 300 years, and we're youngsters, in comparison.....James
Ahem! If the gummint hadn't wanted their slice of moonshine, we wouldn't have stock car racing and Joseph Kennedy wouldn't have made as much money as a rum runner, so JFK would never have been President.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
It's kinda like income taxes...it's not so much that they want a slice, as how BIG a slice they demand.....
Besides, the revenuers finally came to their senses...now you can distill a reasonable amount of whisky every year without having to pay taxes on it, as long as you don't sell it...
Even though I'm not a real big stock car racing fan...the world would be a much poorer place without it!!
Edited 2/27/2006 4:14 pm ET by pzgren
Edited 2/27/2006 4:15 pm ET by pzgren
Calling it my problem is probably overstating things... I seldom touch the stuff... Still, knowing that over 80% of the price we pay for it here is tax... that's irksome... But that's politics.. lets not go there...
'Bout this new design of yours in the celebral melting pot.. whatchya got in mind for totes..???Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
"the cerebral melting pot"- I am amused by that.
Totes-can't be the conventional knob and handle as per Stanley, because i am thinking low profile semi infill shoe-like profile. Short thick blade to rest on wood bed with adjuster to be contained in brass strap inlet into said wood,the blade not to be on the wide side because of weight and heaveability considerations. The rear to have a shape that accommodates the heel or palm of the hand . The front-well I'm not sure, but I am not keen on that Norrisfied look which is also not nice to get hold of, therefore might go for a mushroom or similar to allow a thumb to fit without interfering with the clouds of wispy shavings???
Anyway at all costs, it must have Crow Pulling Power in abundance , matched by Function. And perhaps two versions: the one to be double dovetailed and the other to be screwed and pinned together.
Well that is what is in the pot.Philip Marcou
Sounds interesting.. the description of the rear tote brings images of the L-N block planes to mind... Done in a suitable infill material that strikes me as a highly desirable look.. hmmmmm... definate potential there Sir...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Just a passing thought, Laddae: no amount of attention from lasses, buxom , foxy or otherwise is going to save you once premature decrepitation sets in, so make hay while the sun shines.Philip Marcou
Saving..?? who in heck is talkin about saving.... sheeshhh Any excuse is better than none at all.... an I got mine... go gitchyer own... ;P~~Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Philip,
Thanks for your load of information. You mentioned in one of your posts, a while ago, M2 (for knives?) and other steels. You sure know a lot more than just woodworking.
"Resolution of Forces " - yes, that's what I had in mind. Decomposing the force exerted by wood parallel to the sole into the components parallel to the bed/frog and perpendicular to the sole.
In the absence of empirical evidence (actual experience), that's how I try to enlighten my decisions,
I have come to appreciate the difference in steels first hand. Got some Hock's for my two Stanley block planes (a while ago) and more recently (in the Fall) one for my Record #4. #4 still did not match LN 4 1/2 (as soon as I got the LN I compared it to the #4). Well, as of a few days ago, it compares very favorably - that's another story ;).
I think that I will still 'splurge' for LN 164 - well, some needs do turn into splurges. Now I am more driven by a desire to compare them. An LN #4 is pretty much off the radar (and probably for quite a while, if not for good).
I go along what you (and Midnight) said about the mouth configuration. I still (want to) believe that a short (1/32" to 1/16") surface of the mouth parallel to the upper surface of the iron would not impede the shavings, yet it would reduce the tendency for a tearout. I just might to make a wooden plane to test my guesses.
Having just paid another visit to your planes, what made you go that route (bevel up)? You mentioned that they are easier (simpler?) to make. When I consider your woodworking experience, I do not believe that this was your only reason, even if dominant.
I would like to know more about your thinking behind your planes. How satisfied are you when you compare them with the many other planes you owned so far?
Holtey #98 is very close (in concept) to yours, bevel up and similar geometry. Quite pretty too. Somehow not as 'warm' as yours (to my taste). Maybe because it is all steel and no charm of dovetails?
Re: Malcolm's resp[onse on the other thread - any thoughts toward writing a 'present-day' planemaking book?
Best wishes,
Metod
Philip,
Here is another question. There are various bronze alloys available, each with some distinguishing properties. Some seem to be impregnated with 'oil' to decrease their friction coefficient (self-lubricating?). Any use for plane soles - sort of a metal version of lignum vitae?
Best wishes,
Metod
Metod, I decided to go bevel up because I could use the short thick blade from Veritas, and there is no need for a chip breaker. As it happens, I am not convinced that chipbreakers are a necessary complication anyway, most of the time , unless one sticks to the traditional Stanley format. It also meant that I could aim at making something a bit more versatile, and I confess that my readings on various forums make me think that the concept is well received at the moment.
But your real question-bevel or bevel down which performs better- still hangs . I reckon it is six of one and half a dozen of the other-not the greatest of answers....Did you see what C.R Miller wrote?
The type of bronze you think of is porous to hold oil-I am not sure that it would slide over wood any better, and also it may not have the strength. A metallurgist woodworker is the right creature to answer that question I think.
M2 is a commonly used tool steel for engineering stuff like drill bits and other cutting tools. They like it because it stays hard even at red hot heats and resists wear well.I reckon it is severe overkill for us woodworkers-even for those who claim to routinely run their soles and blades at red heat(;) not to mention the added heat treatment complications as compared to say 01 steel. Also us Crows will be unimpressed by its lack of shine as compared to the steels with more chrome content(;)-you win some and you lose some. I maintain that the heat treatment given is a more critical factor than most anything as it is not an exact science.Philip Marcou
The CG may be lower, but not by much. There's far more mass close to the bottom of both the BU and BD than the top and if the frog is layed down, it may make a little difference at high speed during a change of direction but not much while planing. It's not as if the BD would tip over if left unattended. It makes more sense to me that the thrust line would be as low as possible to inhibit rotation, in any direction.
The angle of the leading edge to the surface being planed is what determines the force needed to move the plane. The trailing edge has no bearing on this, other than the fact that it needs to clear the top surface when mounted in the plane. However, if the bevel is at an angle that is too acute, the edge can flex backward and therefore, down. This causes it to dig in, making it even harder to push.
Highfigh
Thanks. Yours is the second reply (appreciated as much as Midnight's and confirming his). I was fishing for this answer from two angles: by somebody's knowledge or experience or by seeing a correct force 'diagram' - from which I hoped to 'deduce' the answer. A speculation just doesn't cut it, if it is not supported by empirical evidence.
Best wishes,
Metod
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled