My friend Larry is adamant that bevel up planes cannot be cambered as easily as bevel down planes
“… for the low angle blade profile to have the same projection as the common pitch plane it would have to have more than three times as much camber…”
Larry has a point. My own experiments have shown that BU planes require more camber than BD planes. It is for this reason that cambering BU planes has been considered a weakness in the design. Hopefully we can put an end to this view now. The fact is it is dead easy to camber a BU blade … it still will require a larger camber, but this is not a significant issue as long as you follow one simple rule. Let me show you how it is done.
The Way to Cambering Bevel Up Blades.
Here it is in a nut-shell … grind the primary bevel on all plane blades to 25 degrees. Don’t try to camber any blade that is greater than this, such as one with a 38- or 50 degree primary bevel (such as those available as optional purchases through Veritas). The latter blades are perceived to be a shortcut to honing, but this is an illusion.
BU planes blades are best prepared with a microbevel. There is no difference if this is added to a 25-, 35, or 45 degree primary bevel. However, the steeper the primary bevel, the more steel to remove when honing/grinding a camber. With a 25 degree primary bevel there is relatively little waste to remove. With a 50 degree bevel … well, you’ll drive yourself insane trying to do so..
What kind of camber do you want?
Cambers vary from a .001” thin shaving on a finish smoother to that of the “traditional fore/jack plane used for roughing would have about 1/16″ of camber”, as Larry notes. Mmm … can a BU Jack produce a cambered shaving that thick? Easy-peasy!
To illustrate that there is very little extra effort in preparing the camber on a (bevel up) Veritas Low Angle Jack compared to, say, a (bevel down) Stanley #5 ½, I prepared the following tutorial.
What I do
The first step is to start with a blade with a 25 degree primary bevel. I do my flat grinding on a belts sander on which I built a jig similar to a Tormek (this was published in a past FWW magazine). If I have to remove a lot of metal, I will use a 40 or 60 grit belt. This runs quite cool.
Here is an example of a 25 degree straight grind on the belt sander …
The second step is to construct a template for grinding the camber.
Prepare a block of wood the same width as the blade and mark off 1/16” at each end, then draw an arc across this. Remove the waste, so ….
Mmmm… I think I took off a bit more than 1/16”. Looks like 5/64”.
The completed template looks like this ..
and
Adjusted to grind a 25 degree bevel, it works like this …
The result is a cambered 25 degree primary bevel ….
And, yes Bugbear, the camber does indeed match the template! Look …
Honing the Secondary Bevel
The aim is now to add a secondary microbevel of 35 degrees. This will create an included angle of 47 degrees, which is close to the 45 degrees of the typical bevel down cutting angle.
To do this I used a Veritas Honing Guide Mk II (with camber roller) and Shapton waterstones.
The honing guide requires a little modification. Draw a line at the blade stop to help determine the 35 degree setting. Users of this honing guide will understand this instruction.
The Shapton waterstones used were, in order, 1000/5000/8000/12000.
Here is the microbevel that was produced …
And here is the camber as seen from the mouth of the LA Jack …
Soooo .. what about the shavings? None of this means anything without any shavings ..
Here is a thinnish shaving …
… and a thickish one …
It is possible to go thicker still, but I did not do so here.
Instead, I took some pictures of cambered shavings on other BU planes….
This is one on the Veritas BU Jointer on the edge of a pine board. Look at the thick center and the tapered edges. The shavings are identical to those taken by a cambered Stanley #7. I am sure that David Charlesworth would be proud.
And here is a finely cambered smoother shaving…. Tasmanian Oak planed by the Veritas BU Smoother.
What is relevant to note about these last two shavings is that the secondary bevel on each is 50 degrees. Further, these were created without a template – simply by extra pressure on the edge of the blade.
Following the 25 degree primary bevel preparation on the belt sander, the honing guide was set for a 50 degree micro secondary bevel. Ten strokes on the 1000 were enough to create a wire edge across the bevel face. An extra 5 strokes each side was sufficient to create the camber for the smoother, and 10 strokes for the jointer. The 5000 followed with 10 strokes to center, left and right. Ditto 8000 and 12000 ‘stones. The wire edge was removed on the 12000.
In conclusion
I agree with friend Larry that the camber on a BU plane needs to be steeper than on a BD plane. However I do not view this to be a negative factor. It is just a difference in honing, and one that one just accepts as part of the honing method when using these planes. When the secondary microbevel is added to a 25 degree primary bevel, the effort level is low. Camber away without fear.
Regards from Perth
Derek Cohen
October 2007
Replies
Derek,
Thanks for another wonderful tutorial.
Do the BU's perform better than the BD? If not, what are the advantages that make it worthwhile to set up and maintain these super cambers?
Thanks!
Hi Samson
I would not go so far as to say that one type was better than the other - there are too many variables involved, too many factors to consider. Both the BU and the BD varieties have their supporters.
An advantage for many is the ability of the BU plane to alter its cutting angle simply by increasing or decreasing the secondary bevel angle. For example, the BU Jack can be armed with a 25 degree bevel (= 37 degree cutting angle) and it is perfect for shooting endgrain. At the other end of the spectrum, use a 50 degree bevel (= 62 degree cutting angle) and you can plane the most tricky grain around.
Some like the ease of doing this - just keep a couple of blades on hand. What I like is the feel of these low centre of gravity planes. They are comfortable and controllable.
Then again, I have and use BD planes as well.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
Wonderful post. Thank you very much. I agree with the comments of Stanford and Samson, both in content and in spirit.
From the point of view of a person from North America, it is amazing that you do such creative work, while standing upside down. Possibly it is the blood rushing to your head which enables such creativity.
I guess if I was to criticize your post, it would be that your incisive analysis and empirical well-photographed findings leave no room for argument.
You previously gave me advice on BU vs BD and based on that advice, I have gone BD. As you said, maintaining irons both ways is much more trouble, especially for someone just beginning to learn the ins and outs of handplanes. I got a lot of advice. I looked at all possible rsequences of buying a small set of planes, I had gotten specific advice against every one of them. So I got the Low Angle Adj Mouth Block Plane first, and then the 5 1/2, for which I will be building a shooting board or two. Next stop is either a 4 or a 4 1/2. Meanwhile, I am getting excellent exercise. Indeed I was thinking about a new set of TV and DVD exercise routines based on the use of handplanes.
While I will not be going the BU route, I have studied your post, and will continue to do so as you make them. I hope to see a DVD coming soon from Down Under. That will balance all of them coming from Cosman, up in Canada.
Please keep em coming.
Thank you.
Mel
PS I would have written more but I have had a number of recent requests to be brief.
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Derek,
Strewth, you are a marvellous bloke! Cambering BU blades is right at the top of my "things to learn" list at the moment and there you come up with chapter and verse.
Strewth, you are marvelous (I say it again).
Lataxe, with much gratitude.
The jig for grinding an initial camber on a belt sander is cool. Thanks for that idea.
Take care, Ed
Derek,
If nothing else you've shown how to slow the grinding process down. Can I suggest you skip all the jigs and fixtures and just grind the iron? If you first establish the cutting edge profile by grinding at 90º and then grind the bevel to the flat you've created on the end of the iron, you could probably have the finished iron in less time than you spent tinkering around creating needless accessories.
At the end of your post you wrote, "...I agree with friend Larry that the camber on a BU plane needs to be steeper than on a BD plane...."
Thanks for the status elevation. "Friend" is a new one around here. First, I never said you couldn't grind the iron. I frequently grind a lot more radical shapes than we're talking about here.
Evidently you don't completely agree with the longer profile stuff. Let's review a little. Here's the photo I posted in the post you seem to be responding to:
View Image
The 1/16" of camber is what you'd have on a real fore plane. To duplicate the full projected profile on a bevel up plane you need more than three times as much camber. I'll accept 3/16", though. You might want to grind at around 37º to avoid some tear out. Then, I'd like to see you use it as a real fore plane. Let's not get too picky, why don't we just say you rough flatten a couple 1" X 6" X4' pieces of something easy like rough walnut or cherry. I don't want you to waste a lot of time on this so how about if you take full width shavings like you were actually doing this for real. If you can manage this I'm really curious how much wear you'll end up with on the flat face of the iron. How about a photo of the face of the iron at the end?
Your friend,
Larry
Hi Larry
You asked a few questions. I'll do my best to answer.
Can I suggest you skip all the jigs and fixtures and just grind the iron?
You can suggest, but I don't see what the problem is. Is time an issue in a once-off preparation of the iron? Perhaps you could do this by eye on your beltsander (you do still use one?), but I neither feel that to be against The Rules (are there Rules?), nor do I believe that the majority of those woodworkers for whom I have written this article would feel comfortable doing so either. Nothing wrong with a jig. Don't you use them at all when building planes?
If you first establish the cutting edge profile by grinding at 90º and then grind the bevel to the flat you've created on the end of the iron, you could probably have the finished iron in less time than you spent tinkering around creating needless accessories.
I think you are reading into the process something that you want to read, not what is there. The picture of the 90 degree profile was of a different blade, not the one I ground with a camber. Why would I want to do the work twice? Actually, that second iron was one I honed for the smoother using just the LV Honing Guide and finger pressure.
The 1/16" of camber is what you'd have on a real fore plane. To duplicate the full projected profile on a bevel up plane you need more than three times as much camber.
What's wrong with the picture? Don't you see it? Here's a clue ... the LA Jack is producing decent jack-type shavings. The way the bevel looks is irrelevant. It does not have to look the way you want it to look. It just has to work the way it should.
Let's not get too picky, why don't we just say you rough flatten a couple 1" X 6" X4' pieces of something easy like rough walnut or cherry. I don't want you to waste a lot of time on this so how about if you take full width shavings like you were actually doing this for real. If you can manage this I'm really curious how much wear you'll end up with on the flat face of the iron. How about a photo of the face of the iron at the end?
Larry, you are determined to find fault somewhere, somehow. I do not have all the answers right now. They are there, just waiting to be discovered. Isn't that exciting! What say that we try to do something positive here, like figuring these things out?
Let me share something that I found interesting. I have started playing around with cambers on the BU irons. This is one of the uses of a jig - to make things reproducable (first law of scientific research). I use a similar jig to grind scrub plane irons. One of these irons is on a Stanley #5 1/2, which is my Dreadnought class scrub, and comes out when I have seriously hard wood to hog. The iron on this has a 5 1/2" radius. What I noticed (after I had ground the iron for the LAJ) was that these two irons had a similar radius. The template for the #5 1/2 is on the right. I would estimate that the radius for the LAJ iron is 6".
View Image
Now this got me thinking. Yes, the camber for a BU iron must be steeper than that for a BD iron, but this is also an advantage when it comes to grinding a desired camber. The #5 1/2 takes a much narrower shaving for a blade of similar shape. Therefore the LAJ has a wider range of possible cambers to choose from. You can experiment more easily with BU blades. That is worth pursuing.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 10/9/2007 4:13 am ET by derekcohen
Edited 10/13/2007 12:04 am ET by derekcohen
Derek,
I have heard of horseradish, yes.
Your next mission, should you choose to accept, is to investigate the rate of wear on the flat side of the b/u blade(s). Would you be able to try out both say an A2 and an O1 blade?Philip Marcou
Hi Philip
That is exactly what I am examining. We know that the back of a BU blade has more wear than a BD blade. There are different ways to deal with this wear bevel. I would like to answer what is the best, most efficent method of honing the back of the blade.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Just as a general note that lower wear bevels exist on all cutting tools (though on vertical cutters like say a shaper blade they are called something different).
The issue is not that they exist on low angle bevel up blade and not on bevel down blades. The only issue is that lower wear bevels are greater in growth (both size and rate of growth is quicker) the lower the angle.
So even on bevel down blades, a 45 degree bedded BD plane will develop a larger lower wear bevel faster than a 60 degree bedded blade.
On both types of blades (BU/BD) there is also an upper wear bevel. In my own use, it was no more onerous to sharpen one type blade to remove the wear bevels than another. It is an issue of X number of strokes, not minutes of sharpening, nor one of regrinding.
It is easier to see the effect of the wear bevels on the flat side of a plane blade (or chisel) on either type of blade. Often one will obtain what appears to be a sharp blade (and it may well be) and still see, under good lighting conditions and holding the blade at a aspect to the lighting source that will reveal it, a slight glimmer of light on the flat side right along the edge. That is the wear bevel--a dubbing that comes from use--that has not been fully removed.
The main moral of the story is that sharpening must remove both wear bevels in order to obtain maximum sharpness. Note that it must be removed for maximum sharpness not functional sharpness.
For a "real" test may I suggest something? It seems to me that due to differences in irons even across single manufacturers, being able to test the same iron regardless of configuration (BU/BD) would be one of the better means to this end. It would require removing the adjusters in metal planes and setting the irons by hand. As well, the same boards should be used as there is even different abrasive qualities within some boards. And...the amount of projection below the sole should be measured so the amount of fiber springback is comparable between the plane types.
This last thing--the amount of projection--could be as informal as measuring the resultant thickness of shaving. All swipes of the plane made across the board needed to obtain closely similar shaving thickness should be logged as it is the total number of cutting strokes that need to be accounted for.
My take on all the above? While it all makes sense to my little pea brain, is so unnecessary. Buy a plane, any plane, and use it...just make sure it is sharp.
Take care, Mikewho is going back out to the shop...
Derek,
Your and Phili's mention of the wear bevel (and Mike's elaboration) revealed yet another facet of blade maintenance unknown to me. I'm hoping there will be some further illuminating discussion of this phenomenon. Hopefully you (or someone) will answer these questions:
* Presumably the wear bevel is caused by the underside of the blade edge rubbing the wood as one planes.......?
* When Mike says the wear bevel is greater with lower angles, is this because more of the blade-underside next-the-edge comes to rub on the wood sooner, as the wear progresses?
* What is the nature of the degradation in the cutting edge caused by the wear bevel? Is the dubbing some kind of bending-over of the cutting edge? Or is it a rounding?
* If the plane is not lifted off the work whilst being brought back for the next swoosh, does this increase the dubbing, decrease it again or have no effect (I assume it will contribute a bit to an increase in the wear bevel itself?
* Does use of the ruler trick delay or even prevent a wear bevel (or rather, its dubbing of the cutting edge)?
* Does the wear bevel and its dubbing of the edge require the blade back to be reflattened during every re-sharpening? Or does remaking or honing the (micro)bevel take care of it?
Thanks in anticipation to anyone who can clarify this wear bevel thang via answers to these questions (or any other information).
Lataxe, who keeps coming across another learning hill after breasting the one before.
Lataxe, old thang,
Can't address your wear bevel questions directly, except to say that when I got my old foreplane, the iron in it was bevelled at what turned out to be something very close to the bed angle (about 45*). It took me a while to realise that the reason it would only cut for a short time before needing resharpening, was that as soon as it developed a wear bevel (didn't know it had a name til now), the wear bevel's angle was greater than the bed angle, and prevented the edge from entering the wood.
Ray
"When Mike says the wear bevel is greater with lower angles, is this because more of the blade-underside next-the-edge comes to rub on the wood sooner, as the wear progresses?"
I don't think that's the problem. On a conventional bevel-down blade, any wear on the clearance (down) side is removed almost immediately when you hone the blade. On a bevel-up blade, the clearance side is the nominally flat side, so you'd have to grind away quite a bit of the blade to get rid of any wear.
Of course, when you look at wear on the hook (top) side, the situation is symmetrically reversed, and it's the bevel-down blade that's at a disadvantage.
So unless someone can demonstrate that there is consistently more wear on the clearance side than the hook side of a plane blade, I don't think the argument really makes sense.
-Steve
The upper and lower wear bevels are formed by two things. First is abrasion. Abrasion accounts for all the upper wear bevel formation as well as being a significant factor for the lower wear bevel.
Second is fiber spring back. When wood is cut, the "level" of cut on the surface of the wood does not exactly equal the projection of the blade. The surface is deformed--fibers pushed forward. As the blade passes, these fibers "spring back" to their nominal height. The abrasion caused by fiber spring back is greater than the abrasion cause in front of the cutting edge.
With both BD and BU planes, fiber spring back and abrasion (cause by the rubbing of steel against wood at the cutting plane) and fiber spring back abrade the bottom of the blade causing the lower wear bevel formation greater than the upper wear bevel. (Fiber spring back also affects the upper wear bevel, of course.)
The lower the clearance angle (bedding angle for a BU plane, bevel angle for a BD plane) the greater effect that fiber spring back causes and the rapidity of its growth.
I suppose that mention of both effective cutting angle and bedding angles should be included somewhere. One can take all this to an extreme. On a BD plane, one can imitate the bedding of a higer angle BD plane by creating an acute bevel. This doesn't work well for obvious reasons.
The higher the bedding angle of a BD plane results in a more equal formation of the lower wear and upper bevels. I have a drawing I made somewhere that illustrates all these things, but it needs proper annotation. Be ready for other weird names of things (shear zones, workplanes, lift angles, etc).
As mentioned, the wear bevels are more readily remidied by sharpening on a BD blade. I think that is mainly due to being use to seeing sharpening progress when working on the bevel proper. I have observed that most people who have brought in BU planes to sharpening classes do not inspect the flat side of their blade during sharpening. They do inspect the bevel. This also applies to BD planes brought into class.
Even those with the BD planes may see they have created a nice bevel, but one can see the remaining dubbing of the wear bevel on the flat side remaining. In both cases (ND/BU) one must simply sharpen past the flat side wear bevel.
I've babbled on long enough. Lunch is over...back to work.
Take care, Mike
FWIW:
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/bladetest.html
Samson, old son, that dissertation by Brent Beach is worth a MINT.
All those (rude) fellows who will be rude about the Ruler Trick (in spite of not having the gumption to even try it first), and those who say an iron is an iron is an iron, or that this way up or or down rules, or even Stanley rules(d), would do well to read that.
Not to harp on too much: the only unfortunate thing about the ruler trick is the designation or name....Philip Marcou
Philip,
Yeah, Brent's sites is really interesting to poke around on. What was amazing to me is how counterintuitive (at least for me) so many of his findings are.
In the latest sharpening debates on Knots, I've felt like a ping pong ball, being convinced by whomever has last had the floor on the various issues in the mix.
All that said, I think perhaps Brent is striving to achieve levels of sharpness that are not necessary for most woodwork (again, at least that I do). I agree with something I read by Chris Shwarz once - that out definition of sharp changes as we get better and better at sharpening. I know I continue to improve and will likely keep on that curve for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, my tools perform very well for me even though I sharpen using methods Brent shows to be inferior technically (waterstones, strops, flat backs, etc.).
Could it be possible that we are living in the midst of a sharpening Renaissance?
One cannot help but shudder at the momentousness of this reality.
Lataxe
You ask many questions. Many of the answers are here
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/bevels.html
As others have said, there is wear on both sides of the blade. The shape depends on the geometry: the included angle, the clearance angle, and the sum of the two. Small clearance angles (much less than 10 degrees) seem to produce lower wear bevels faster. In this case, the blade will feel dull because the blade is floating on the wear bevel. Large combined angles seem to dull faster. Here you are scraping rather than cutting, generating more heat, which speeds wear.
The difficulty with bevel up is that many people don't notice the problem on the back of the blade. They sharpen the front, leaving the back wear bevel. The blade almost immediately floats. If you use a low angle plane, the only way to remove the lower wear is to grind it off - regrind the primary each time you sharpen the blade.
With bevel down, the back wear bevel faces up. The result is a larger included angle, which increases effort and can reduce edge life, but otherwise is hard to notice. It can affect planing on stringy woods though. You can handle back wear on bevel down planes with back micro bevels, or grind them off each time you hone.
Brent
If you use a low angle plane, the only way to remove the lower wear is to grind it off - regrind the primary each time you sharpen the blade.
Hi again Brent
The area of the wear bevel, and how to deal with it, is far from the black-and-white solution you paint.
I can think of three ways to remove a wear bevel (and I am exploring these three and looking at other means).
1. As you described, regrind the primary bevel each time.
2. Flatten the back of the blade.
3. Use a micro backbevel (ala Ruler Trick).
Keep in mind that BD planes also require the same maintenance as does a BU plane. They are not that different in this regard. There is a slight advantage with the BD plane insofar as the wear bevel being less pronounced.
I do think that the issue has been exaggerated.
My interest (as I mentioned to Philip) is to find an efficient, quick and simple method for dealing with the wear. It may just turn out to be a couple of swipes of the back of the blade across a strop (which is what I am presently doing). This takes a few seconds to do.
I shall be putting my newly-purchased QX3 microscope to use.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Mr B,
Thank you for that link and all the work you did to create the site behind it. I have begun my studies. :-)
Perhaps you will continue to keep an eye on this thread? I am hoping so as there will be many questions. Many, many questions. From your web site, I'm guessing you're a bloke that likes to answer them, if possible.
Anyway, much gratitude, for the current education and that to come.
Lataxe
More food for thought:
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/nlc-wood/chapters/caop.html
click on the links to skew and spring as well.
Samson,
You are a mine of knowledge-gold. I am now studying (in between spokeshaving chamfers and carving lambs tongues on me geet big oak tretle table; and walking Monty the pointer-hund, a daughter dog I am minding for a bit). I yam tired oot.
There is a lot to study. This time last year I woulda laughed at the idea of all this plane obsession. And now look at me! Gawd!! Thank you for the links, though (I think). :-)
Lataxe, seduced by the slope.
Derek,
"We know that the back of a BU blade has more wear than a BD blade."
I am not at all sure that "we" do know this.Philip Marcou
Philip,All of this talk of the backs of BU blades wearing ---Why not use a diamond blade or at least a diamond film which is bonded to the blade to eliminate wear (except on Australian hardwoods)? It seems like diamond manufacturing technology has come a long way. Why are we only using diamonds to sharpen blades? Why not make diamond blades?Of course that would eliminate the need for sharpening, and that would devastate Knots, which thrives on discussions of sharpening.I wouldn't worry about cost. Festool and Sawstop have broken that barrier. Cost is no longer an issue in woodworking tools. I am estimating that within three years, the average woodworking shop will cost in the neighborhood of $3.46M (US). Have fun.
MelPS - I looked at my Razor this morning, and I had another idea for your plane-making. Years ago, in the time of the dinosaurs, shaving devices had a single blade. Then they went to two parallel blades. Now they are up to five. Why did woodworking planes, which are essentially "wood shavers", remain back in the dinosaur age with a single blade? Why not use five? Tormek would sponsor a movement such as this.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Diamond coated carbide blades are commercially available from the
Gesellschaft für Diamantprodukte and possibly other manufacturers.
Multiple blades (i.e. 3 blades) have been tried in supersurfacers (TU Dresden, 1996 and 1998). As far as I know this research has not been commercialized yet.Chris Scholz
Atlanta, GA
Galoot-Tools
Chris,
Damn,
I had two great ideas, and both were stolen from me before I got a chance to express them. (or something like that).
Thanks for letting me know. I will look up the sources you provided.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I spent a little time over the past week playing around with profiles for the LA Jack. The radical camber I posted here originally produced a typical Jack shaving of 1/32" thick and approximately 1 1/4 - 1 1/2" wide. However I was not satisfied with the profile and thought that it could be improved. The original profile had a radius of 5 1/2". I finally settled on a radius of 8 1/2". This is the difference on the template: Here is the profile in the mouth of the LA Jack: The shavings are wider now, about 2": .. and with a miniscule loss of thickness (still efectively 1/32" thick). I think that I will keep this one. Regards from Perth Derek
Derek
I am absolutely lmao!! OUTSTANDING! You should send that post to Larry, though.
;>)
Jeff (grinning ear to ear)
I'm amused too, Jeff. Amused but pleased, we're making some headway. It's been a few years since I first posted in response to one of Derek's posts saying, "but you can't take a heavy shaving with that plane." His response was, "Why would anyone want to." I've been trying to drag him, kicking and fighting all the way, into the world of bench planes and what they're intended to do. I'm gaining some appreciation for those in his line of work, I'll bet many of his clients don't like him much either. Wait 'til he gets my bill.
You're doing great, Derek. We're still not there, though. Let's look at the graphic Mike Wenzloff posted on another forum:
View Image
This is from a US Government military manual and it's too bad they confused a fore plane with a try plane. We'll take what we can get though. You can see that the jack plane iron should have around 1/16" of camber. Now let's look at the illustration I posted earlier:
View Image
Remember this? When I draw a 2" long chord in a 5 1/2" radius circle I show Derek has about 3/32" of camber to his iron yet for his low angle plane he needs 3/16" to get the same profile projection from the sole the common pitch plane in Mike's illustration shows. Derek is about half way there and actually has about the proper camber for a trying plane.
Let's not get picky, though. One can actually hand prepare stock with a trying plane. It'll take a little longer but we have the time. The old term for stock preparation was "thicknessing" and but Eddie from Australia has posted links to information about stock preparation and a decent source for the techniques is FEWTEL.
We can take advantage of Derek's progress and ask that he flatten and true the first face of a piece of 4/4 stock. Maybe something that might be a drawer front at 6" by 24". Remember Derek, this first face is the reference face so it'll be the back face of the drawer front. The goal is to get it true but to remove a minimum of material so you can actually thickness to 7/8" or so from the finish side. I'd ask him to actually finish preparing a piece of stock by hand but I'll be patient, we have lots of time for that. I'll take the little victories one at a time.
Derek's reluctance to grind without training wheels is putting his iron at risk. Assuming that iron is still in good shape, thank God it's A-2 and not O-1 or W-1, he should be able to use it now. I'm afraid if he goes farther on his jig he'll burn that iron to a crisp. I don't think Derek is up for suggestions on grinding technique or anything else from me, so we may have to wait a few more years before he gets the self confidence to grind free hand using the two step method that is quick and limits heat build-up at the edge.
Larry
I've been intentionally absent for quite a while on the Knots, and now I remember why. However, you've peaked my interest tonight, and they've cancelled this evening's normal 4 hour run of Star Trek reruns, being replaced by worthless reruns of old halloween horror flicks, so I've got some unexpected free time on my hands. So, here's my equally worthless response:
Derek's reviews and articles are certainly geared towards non-professional hobbyist woodworking types that are baffled by all the crap shoved down their throats in the 100+ woodworking mags and sales brochures mailed and emailed out on a daily basis. I can certainly see where the information he freely gives is quite helpful to a weekend warrior who has never had any apprenticeship or even stepped foot in a professional shop to see how it's actually done. I'll even bet that lightbulbs are popping on all over the world as they read his reviews, because he does explain his point very, very well.
Whether or not there is a true need to be able to camber a bevel up try or fore plane is completely besides the point.
Most of my planes are of the traditional, bevel down variety, and when I need to camber an iron, I do it by hand in about 5 to 10 minutes ( as fast as frickin possible), and I get back to work.
And lastly, (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) quit spending so much time here on the Knots bashing everybody in the head and spend that time figuring out a way to get those planes at C & W done faster, so I don't have to be quoted a 2 F@$@@#$G year wait on a moving filletster plane. (Mine is a hundred plus years old, and it sucks!!!)
Cheers,
Jeff
Hi
Happened on this interesting exchange a little late, but thought I could contribute a little.
Derek's idea for using a pattern camber when grinding is quite ingenious and will produce a camber on the iron equal to the camber on the wooden guide. However, as Larry says, there is a lot of preparation required. If you use a belt sander with a normal tool rest, then grinding any required shape is pretty straight forward. Draw the shape on the back, grind at 90 degrees to get the shape, then grind at the desired bevel angle up to the new edge. Just keep the tool moving quickly and lightly on the abrasive. I have a page with some moving (read blurred) pictures here
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/scrubsharp.html
Having said that, Derek's method takes a little more time only the first time you grind. If you have a number of different blades to do, it may well be faster.
Honing cambered blades requires a light touch as well, or you will get lots of little flats on the edge. Not that it matters for a scrub plane.
However, it looks like Derek is finish-planing grooves rather than scrubbing! Typically when scrubbing I am taking shavings around 1" wide and 25 thousandths thick. Some do thicker (smaller original radius of curvature), but thicker will result in tearout if there are any problems with the wood. Derek's pictures look like he is removing shavings around 1 thousandth thick.
The original camber and the effective camber depend on the plane iron bedding. An original camber of 1/16" over a 2" blade, bedded at 45 degrees, using just the middle inch of the blade, produces shavings 0.022" thick. The same blade bedded at 12 degrees produces shavings 0.006" thick. Not actually scrubbing.
Going the other way, from camber to radius of curvature. A camber of 1/16" over a 2" blade corresponds to a radius of around 8" - quite a shallow camber. A camber of 3.4/16" over a 2" blade corresponds to a radius of around 2.46".
Putting a 2.46" radius on a 2" blade would be quite a radical curve.
Brent
The original camber and the effective camber depend on the plane iron bedding. An original camber of 1/16" over a 2" blade, bedded at 45 degrees, using just the middle inch of the blade, produces shavings 0.022" thick. The same blade bedded at 12 degrees produces shavings 0.006" thick. Not actually scrubbing.
Hi Brent
Thanks for joining in! I was about to send you an email as it was...
It is important to put something into perspective. As far as I am aware, this is the first time any how-to article has been written on this subject. My intent was to set up some parameters and demonstrate a procedure. No doubts other methods will now follow.
The shavings I made with the LA Jack were not as deep as I could have gone, and I said so at the time. I was simply demonstrating what was possible. This is not a scrub plane - the shavings/chips for a scrub would be quite different to those of a fore plane.
What is expected for a fore plane? This is what Adam Cherubini had to say on the matter (quote comes from his blog: http://www.popularwoodworking.com/projectplans_display/?planid=14719 ) ...
My fore plane has a cambered blade which takes a thick, but narrow (1") shaving. It will remove rough saw marks quickly, but leaves shallow troughs in the face of the stock.
So I went into the workshop and took a couple more pictures with the aim of documenting shavings that would be in line with Adam's description. What I wound up with were shavings about 1 1/4" - 1 1/2" wide and 1/32" thick. These left a shallow trough on the work surface.
View Image
So... here we have shavings that are essentially the same thickness of those that you specified (above) for a BD blade bedded at 45 degrees.
Edit for additional info: Brent, I think that the reason you anticipated a .006" shaving for a 12 degree bed is because you are only looking at the bed angle and not at the included angle, which is 47 degrees (12 degree bed + 35 degree secondary bevel). As a result, the shavings I get are actually slightly better than the ones you predict for a 45 degree BD jack.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 10/10/2007 1:18 pm ET by derekcohen
DerekAn interesting set of shavings for sure. My analysis is based on the idea that when the blade advances along the bed of the plane, it is the bedding angle alone that determines the set of the blade. By set I mean the perpendicular distance from the blade edge to the sole. If you imagine the blade projecting through the sole (looking at the side of the plane with the blade visible below the sole). It seems clear to me that the set is independent of the blade's bevel angle. I see the edge sitting below the sole and can readily imagine a variety of different bevel angles (bevel up in this case, not that it matters) without the set changing.The set depends only on the bedding angle. The shaving thickness depends only on the set.So, how to explain your thick shavings? Well, they are obviously impossible, so no explanation is necessary! (I happen to be rereading Sherlock Holmes right now.)You could double the set by using the full width of the blade - that is, moving the blade forward twice as far. Perhaps the blade is extended far enough that it is actually deflecting under the load? (Low probability)Just cannot think of a plausible explanation without more information.Brent
Theatre of the Absurd.
Charles,
You are a Situationist and I nivver realised!
Of course, your multiple personalities(which are all the same) should have given the game away.
One day you will be happy and content. Then you will let others be so too. On second thought, maybe not. You will shuffle off the mortal coil as miserable as when you shuffled it on. Poor thing.
Lataxe, several personalities with one name.
Lataxe
I was not aware that TaunTonMacoute was one of Charles' pseudonyms. Is this so Charles? I am confused. Earlier on in this thread you paid me a compliment. Since you rarely pay anyone a compliment, I accepted this as high praise.
Lataxe, you speak of multiple personalities. Out of interest I did a Google search for TaunTonMacoute. There was no information on such a person. However, there was a lot on one Ton Ton Macoute. He is the Haitian folklaw "bogeyman", an individual who would kidnap children. Later Francois Duvalier (better known as "Papa Doc") used this name for his followers. According to Wikipedia, the Tonton Macoutes were known for dressing in militant clothing comparative of Italian fascist attire. They were also known for wearing dark glasses, wielding machetes, and leaving their victims hanging in a public place as a warning to others.
Is there a relationship here, or is this just coincidence?
Regards from Perth
Derek (confused by the unexpected attacks that add nothing of value to this thread)
Derek,
And what about "Panbroil", which sound like some unpleasant cooking process applied to live crawfish or other hapless beasts (humans?). Then there is "Marsupial", which you know lots about, I bet.
I suspect Boss Crunk may also be at least a relative of Charles (his twin bruvver maybe).
The thing is, they are all the same in attitude and biteyblokeness. I keep trying to tell Charles he should try really different personalities on - he could try: helpful & well mannered; analytically scientific; considerative to old ladies and children (Mel and me). He might even try: woodworker prepared to try novel tools and methods. This is how one discovers that the idea of a single, integrated human personality is a myth. Also, one understands Roles and The Spectacle much better.
But no, he wants to wear that Italian uniform and the dark glasses all the time, as he machetes us here and there. Still, his antics and swoops from the highwire whilst making gurning faces provide a wonderful spectacle, worthy of condemnation by Guy Debord hisself!
Lataxe, agent to the stars of stage and forum
Lataxe,
If you ever come to North America, we can meet in Montreal and do a walking tour using a map of Singapore.
Situationally,
Andy
Andy,
Perhaps a map of Mars? After all, from over here the North of America looks like another planet. (Although happily the 'habitants has two arms, two legs and speaks English, just like the aliens in Star trek). :-)
Lataxe, an innocent not abroad.
Here is Phil Lowe on plane iron cambers:
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/SkillsAndTechniques/SkillsAndTechniquesArticle.aspx?id=29711
Pay the subscription fee you cheap bastards!
Seems a little less fudged up, a saner approach, although he is using bevel down planes (the cheeky S.O.B). Watch how deftly he handles each plane. When I first started using them I looked like an octopus falling out of a tree (sorry Jim Furyk).
I'd put Lowe's body of work up against anybody's here. Actually, it probably surpasses everybody's here - combined - in depth, breadth, and quality.
I've been lucky enough to be around him in the shop and he strikes a beautiful balance between the analytical and the practical. He never seems to forget that he's in the shop to build something or to teach somebody to build something. He never cleaves off an overly narrow aspect of the craft and then proceed to whip the hell out of it. His presentations are clear, concise, and never confuse or confound.
And he makes flawless furniture and he's made a whole lot of it.
If you are in this thing to build furniture you could not pick a better guy to emulate.
Edited 10/15/2007 4:27 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
Charles,
Thanks for that link - I'd seen his first vid on planes but couldn't find the others.
As you say, a good basic education concerning the cambers. Interesting to see the lack of jigs, certainly. But Mr L's vid doesn't obviate investigations such as those of Derek and Mr Beach - they simply explore the subject from different perspectives.
Why have this hierarchy of worth you seem to impose, for everything and everyone? All these folk are worth reading, even if you might prefer one style rather than another; agree more with one bloke than another. There doesn't have to be an elite with someone at the top and all the rest dismissed as inadequate or wrong. That attitude belongs to jealous religions and totalitarian states.
Same applies to tool design - there doesn't have to be a "best" (BU, BD, wood, metal, etc.). Other qualities surely count more than the particular design theory; and the different designs may suit different workers and the way they work.
We don't need experts to be dictators, do we?
But thanks for the Lowe-link.
Lataxe
Once you get through the tinkering stage you'll understand exactly where I'm coming from. I promise.
A lot of people watch those little Lowe videos and have a "what, that's all there is" moment. Well, yes, believe it or not in most cases that pretty much is all there is. Well, it can't be that simple. Sure it is. Why? Because masters let the easy stuff be easy. Designing and building are the difficult aspects, getting planes to work is not.
A long-lasting edge never made anybody a master craftsman. A short-lasting edge never prevented somebody from becoming one either.
Just build, baby.
As far as the references to 'totalitarian states' and 'jealous religions' are concerned, all I can do is wonder what happened to the delicate and refined art of British understatement. You have a mighty tough task ahead of you in raising hyperbole to art. But this is just a woodworking forum, right? And you do have your fans. What's it like having Bozo the Clown think you are a genius? Man, you must sleep great at night.
Edited 10/15/2007 3:22 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
TTM or Charles or ???
I like Phillip Lowe. He comes across as very unassuming for one so clearly skilled. He makes a couple of points in his demonstration which, if anything, support the factors I raised or demonstrated early on. You should re-visit his video to familiarise yourself with this.
Firstly, he ground his jack blade at 1/16". I set out to do the same (but overdid it slightly - as I showed - but for the purposes of the demo left it as is. This would have left a slightly larger camber than the one I planned). Nevertheless, working on these dimensions the camber on our two blades should be almost identical.
Secondly, Phillip ground his camber on a blade with an established primary bevel using a bench grinder. Larry questioned my grinding (when he saw the straight ground blade) - he thought I had done the job twice. I did not think that this was relevant to state at the time, but I had actually reground a blade with a straight 50 degree primary bevel, taking this to a cambered 25 degree primary bevel. That is a lot of steel to remove in anyone's language, bevel up or bevel down, bench grinder or belt sander. If I had started with a 25 degree primary bevel, as I believe Phillip did, then I would have had the same amount of steel to remove.
Add another observation to this point: Phillip was grinding a standard thickness Stanley blade. I was grinding a Veritas which at 3/16", is nearly three times as thick. Not quite a level playing field!
Thirdly, cambering the smoother and jointer also looks the same to me. I repeat what I wrote before - these were honed by hand, not machine, and they took a couple of minutes only. The only difference with honing a BD plane blade freehand is that a BU plane is best done (in my opinion) with a honing guide. Then, again, how many users of BD planes also use a honing guide. So I guess the score is still even.
I, too, use a bench grinder for bevel down planes and chisels. The belt sander is the better machine for grinding - faster and cooler - but I do prefer a hollow grind, so use the bench grinder. When it comes to bevel up blades, especially when adding high secondary microbevels, this is easier to do with a honing guide on a flat grind, hence the belt sander.
There is not a lot different in these methods or the effort expended.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 10/15/2007 9:08 am ET by derekcohen
Edited 10/15/2007 9:09 am ET by derekcohen
Re-reading the title of the thread "The Secret...." I have my doubts that there was ever a time in Phil Lowe's woodworking career where he found creating a simple, gentle crown on a plane iron worthy of the word "secret."While I know this won't square with your obviously hyper-analytical approach to the craft, I love you anyway.If I were new to the craft, I would have a real sense of hopelessness when reading a lot of your threads. I would have real doubt as to whether or not I could get a few edge tools ready for work, much less take on projects requiring really serious woodworking skills.
Edited 10/15/2007 11:28 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
While I know this won't square with your obviously hyper-analytical approach to the craft, I love you anyway.
Dear TTM or Charles or ???
I love you too.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I will give you this - if all this rigamaroll is required to work the hard timbers to which you often refer I imagine that I'd throw pots instead.
Or move.
Edited 10/15/2007 8:55 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
TTM or Charles or ???
I will give you this - you are if nothing else persistent. What you are gaining from all this rigamaroll is anyone's guess. What substance you are bringing to this thread is a lot clearer ......... SFA
Regards from Perth
Derek
I'm sorry, when I see a micrometer juxtaposed to a wood shaving I go into Tilt mode.
Of course, this is standard operating procedure. How foolish of me to have forgotten this woodworking essential.
My apologies.
Edited 10/15/2007 12:23 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
How foolish of me.
TTM or Charles or ???
It is Larry to whom you should be apologising - he is the one who requested it!
Regards from Perth
Derek
So what? If Larry told you to jump off a bridge would you?
Anyway, you were able to fulfill his request (was there ever a doubt?). 'Nuff said.
Larry builds planes for a living. I think he could do this without a micrometer, but if anybody needed one it's probably Larry.
Edited 10/15/2007 4:57 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
Dear fellow Memphian(?),<!----><!----><!---->
I offer myself up for ridicule, I know. But I would like to offer a beginner's perspective.<!----><!---->
I come to this forum to learn strategies, techniques, and to gain insight into vendors, manufacturers, tools, and equipment. To learn lessons from the more experienced and to feel comraderie with others in the early stages. I come here from a lack of experienced woodworkers (such as you and many others) in my circle of friends; i.e., I have no mentor.
Despite the apparant expertise of so many of you, I find it difficult to clearly understand many tips, tricks, and techniques based on the short comments and retorts that are so often posted. Some in jest, some in anger, some in frustration. I enjoy and try to glean what I can from these, but what I find even more useful and enjoyable are the in-depth reviews and recommendations provided by Derek and others. Agree or disagree, it is very interesting to learn the rationale and facts behind their various opinions and recommendations, even if they are sometimes more academic than artisan. This is especially true when strong differing opinions are being offered.
I know it would be much better to watch and work next to a skilled craftsman, I really do. But barring that, these explanations are all I've got. I would appreciate it if you would proactively provide similar in-depth reviews and explanations. (Maybe you do. If so, please point.) Better yet, I'd love to see your shop, your work, your technique in person.
Derek,
Thanks for all the valuable information you have provided in the past. I will always remember your reply to my first gloat--two LN chisels. You posted a pic of your dedicated chisel cabinet containing hundreds of chisels accumulated over the years. Hilarious, and withering (humbling).
Warm regards to you both,
Danny
If you are in Memphis, I wouldn't mind having an assistant who wants to learn chairmaking. Instead of charging the kind of fees that most woodworking schools charge, I will actually pay this person to help me while they learn. I need at least a six month commitment (would rather have more) and no fewer than 25 hours a week, although you can hang around for more hours if you want. The pay is negotiable, but will be by the hour. The more skills you come to the party with, the more I can afford to pay you. This is a perfect opportunity for a reasonably accomplished woodworker already working for himself or herself but who wants to either add chairmaking to their skill set or refine their chairmaking skills.
You will be hand planing a lot of lumber. I don't give a poop how it gets done as long as it gets done. I don't work wood with machines and then try to find every mark the machines leave and then obliterate them. That's a fool's errand as far as I'm concerned. Handmade - start to finish.
You will be paid as an independent contractor - no benefits, I don't withhold and remit payroll taxes. I'm not worried about the IRS. You get your hourly rate times the number of hours you work, no deductions. I'll buy your lunch every day. I leave the shop and eat a decent lunch - no bologna sandwiches. You need to be able to drink a glass of wine or two at lunch and not have it blow your whole afternoon. I socialize at lunch, and not at places like Shirley's on Summer Avenue. This is how I develop my business. You need to bring a sport coat to work every day in case we meet a client someplace decent for lunch. Something that looks good with jeans, and a change of shoes that will look good with a pair of jeans. A neat, professional appearance is a must at all times. I don't have a lot of shop visitors, but when I do have one they are usually important to my business.
I'm building Windsors, Chippendale, other dead guys' stuff, and some of my own designs. Most of what I'm doing is on commission, but I squeeze a few spec chairs in when I can. I need more time to work on spec stuff and my own designs - that's where you come in.
If you are expecting Garrett Hack's shop, then think again. I have what we both need, but no more.
If you're interested, let me know. I'm not looking for curious tire-kickers. I'll take you to lunch and give you more of the skinny if you'd like to take the next step.
This is an opportunity to see how it really works.
Edited 10/17/2007 8:17 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
Charles,
Damn, wish I was closer to Memphis! Sounds like a good part time gig.
Only part time work where I live is driving a school bus - $10,000/year (ouch) and a busload of screaming kids (ouch)
Lee
I think it would be better than driving a schoolbus, but hell you never know. I would pay more, that's for sure.
Amazing.
I am afraid I am not working for myself. My sense is that I am not young enough to start from the bottom again, and not old enough to say, "Screw it, I'm in." Do you find there is a robust market for hand-crafted furniture here (in Memphis)?
It is actually quite tempting to consider. Truth is, I'm only a hobbyist with a decent-pay check that would be tough to walk away from. On the other hand, I think I've gotten into woodworking for the challenge of design and the reward of actually doing something tangible--things I am not getting from my job. I'm a manager of project managers, for goodness sake. How far is that from something real? Furthermore, my future job opportunities all seem to be moving to India.
The idea of working with you is even more intriguing. I am sure it would be a bona fide, hold-onto-your-hat adventure.
That said, what about the market here? Is it that you have more work than you can do, or that you want more time to develop a market for your work?
The majority of my commissions are out-of-state, but almost every single one of them ultimately came from a contact made in Memphis. The local market is not that great. IMO, you couldn't really make a career out of selling to a Memphis-only clientele. There are custom woodworkers making a living in Memphis but they're doing bulk cabinetry and furniture - mostly cabs. I've limited my scope to only furniture - nothing attached to a wall and nothing made with plywood. No more doors. Well, maybe no more doors.
I'm not a normal guy. Some days I'm up at 3:00 a.m. and done by 10:00 a.m. it really just depends on what's going on. It drives my wife crazy. Some days I'd be done before you even got in. Those would probably be your favorite days.
The repro. stuff only goes so far. My goal is to spend a lot more time on my own designs. That will happen, even if I have to take a few steps backward to make it work.
Edited 10/17/2007 7:58 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
I gotta tell you boys something. All the little honing breaks my pathetic little collection of Record and Stanley planes have afforded me have probably prevented more mistakes and in the end saved more time than any one other thing I can think of. You need time to collect your thoughts. And more than that you need to KNOW when it's time to collect your thoughts (without drooling all over the workbench and generally looking stupid).
The cruel bastard in me would pay good money to watch some of you prissy prima donas plane yourselves into a corner (or to exhaustion, you pick it) with your never-dulling A2 and D2 irons riding in a $2,000 boutique plane. Or better yet, watch you scratch your head and most probably your rears if you had to lay a project out in real time and then produce it.
Nine-tenths of you blokes don't have a fu*cking clue (not you, GettinTher, Midnight, et al.). Most of you guys wouldn't last to first day's morning break in any shop that was worth a damn. You'd get bounced out on your keester as soon as they saw the Marcou emerge from its pansy-a$$ed plane sock.
Signing off. I need to go grind a camber in something. Can I rent time on your linisher? Anyone, anyone, Buehler, Buehler?
Edited 10/17/2007 9:16 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
TaunTon/Charles/Boss/et al-Over the years, I've watched your contributions to this forum. They must total well over a thousand by now. But with few exceptions, the message is always the same: Those who do not think like Charles and act like Charles are not really woodworkers. For not being an acolyte to the Tao of Charles, they deserve the scorn you spew.I'll take your word for it that you are a skilled woodworker and an accomplished furniture maker. There's no available independent evidence for that, so I must rely on your self-evaluation.But what puzzles me is that, with all the skill and experience you have, you virtually never offer advice when it is sought, or explain a technique to improve anyone's efficiency and effectiveness, or suggest ways to improve someone's technical or design skills. All you offer, in the same leaden and humorless prose year after year, is the view that everyone should be just like Charles.To those who choose not to be just like Charles, you offer sneering contempt.Who benefits from your expressed contempt, Charles. I doubt if anyone at whom it is directed either suffers or benefits. So it must be that only you benefit. Else why would you spend so many hours before the computer, composing the many posts you submit. What a strange need it must be to continue in that unvarying pattern year after year, subject after subject, post after post.Do you know what benefit it has for you?
Edited 10/17/2007 10:31 pm ET by DonaldCBrown
Don-He doesn't need me to defend him, so I won't try, but I will offer my thoughts that you did not ask for...Charles is a mite cantankerous, and it's unfortunate because there is a worthy message in there. So far as I can see it's "stop wasting time twiddling with tools and go design/build something, i.e. use the tools you are polishing daily". Most hobbyists (that's the way it's spelled, folks)-myself included-tend to get wrapped up in the tooling up. Notice all the "gloat" threads about tool aquisitions on this and other forums. There are rarely any "gloat" threads about what one has crafted with those tools.Anyway I think that's his gist, occasionally bitter it may seem. I think it's worth considering.
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
JJV,
You propose that:
"Most hobbyists (that's the way it's spelled, folks)-myself included-tend to get wrapped up in the tooling up. Notice all the "gloat" threads about tool aquisitions on this and other forums. There are rarely any "gloat" threads about what one has crafted with those tools".
You have assumed that thinking and playing with tools is somehow preventative of crafting furniture with them. Quite the contrary: I find that thinking and playing with tools allows me to use them well without having to serve a 5 year apprenticeship of the kind, "Just do what I do and ask no questions".
In the ten or eleven years I've been a hobbyist woodworker I've made over 130 pieces. Until around number 120 they were all machine made, apart from the first two (which put me off hand tools for quite a while). The last few pieces have been made mostly with hand tools, only the grunt work of thicknessing and dimensioning the planks being done with machines.
All this talk and playing with various planes, chisels, handsaws and the like has meant that I've been able to understand and better-use the tools quite quickly. There are many helpful and knowledgeable folk here in Knots. Understanding the often counter-intuitive findings of the likes of Derek Cohen and Brent Beach has accelerated my ability to use hand tools to make furniture to a decent standard. Would that I had access to their stuff 11 years ago when I began.
Charles' message is as simple as your precis of it indicates. Who can understand why he keeps repeating it like a broken record; or why it is packaged in a parcel of bile and venom? Once one has read his rather obvious admonition to "get on with it" what does this tell one that one didn't know before? Nowt.
I enjoy the bloke, myself - but not for any woodworking wisdom he imparts, only for his antics as Knots Evil Klown. On woodworking, he has nothing to tell us, although he seems to believe himself to be some sort of wise and infallible oracle. But virtually every one of his statements is, "don't, can't, shouldn't or some other variation on the negative. He is an idealist with a very parochial ideal.
****
Meanwhile, you can find some 3 or 4 of my pieces portrayed here and there about Knots. I intend to portray another soon. The post will contain (as did the others) a bit of stuff about how it was made and what I discovered about the making, including the tool use, the problems and the glitches.
You will find many, many, many other such posts from a whole range of folk, here in Knots. Many are inspirational and illuminating. You won't find any posts with pics of furniture made by Charles, who may or may not make the odd chair in Memphis. This is in line with his inability to post any useful WW knowledge either. He is just.....here.
Lataxe, now a bit weary of little strutting, ranting men (well, one in particular).
PS One of Charles' asides, some time ago, concerned his liking for the mad authoress Ayn Rand. This did provide me a useful pointer to some very entertaining novels and associated "philosophy" (read: "tinpot theories of someone with the more aggresive kind of Asperger's syndrome"). I suspect that Charles' liking for Ms Rand's stuff is quite a big clue to his own persona. I would love to know who else he reads and admires.
Edited 10/18/2007 11:29 am ET by Lataxe
In my youth I was a rather avid fan of the band Rush, whose lyricist was also a fan of Ayn Rand. This led me to read her novella "Anthem", which I found interesting in college. Some years later, I tried to read "Atlas Shrugged", but shrug is exactly what I did when I tried to figure out the big deal. The tome is massive and intimidating in its size, and this was about the time I got into woodwork, so I gave up. (To those of you who will read into that last sentence an admission of intellectual laziness: spot on. Criticize me for something else.)
Anyway, on with it. You wrote this:
"You have assumed that thinking and playing with tools is somehow preventative of crafting furniture with them."
I made no such assumption, and if I led you to believe that, I apologize for being unclear. And besides, it wasn't my point, it was what I assume Charles's point is. I think it is an overall valid point, as my experience has shown that most hobbyists are more avid tool collectors rather than avid crafters. Wait, maybe that's just me.
I have none no hard research other than my informal viewing of Knots and other forums for years, but I stand by my observation that people discuss their tools more than their work. Not as in "how do I use it" but "what should I buy" or "look what I bought". And I, too, have asked the "what should I buy" questions. I find that when you're a beginner, it helps to ask those more in the know. Perhaps the reason more people talk about their tools than their work is that tools are just there, while showing the fruits of your labor is sort of opening yourself up, and I suspect some folks aren't comfortable with that. In my case, I post no pictures because there are no labors to bear fruit these days. Were there fruits, they would be rotten.
I have visited Derek's website and I really enjoy looking at the results of his research. He's quite thorough and it is often (to me) fascinating that someone takes things as far as he does. I appreciate his efforts. Though, like Charles, I find that measuring shavings with a micrometer to be a bit much. I suppose the reason for that is to show consistency in plane performance.
Kudos on your output over the past few years. I look forward to your upcoming post about your most recent project. (I'm starting to sound like Mel now.) These days I see my shop as I pass through it on the way out the door. That's a whole 'nother story though.
John, a fan of the writing style of Lataxe.
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
Edited 10/18/2007 9:56 am ET by JJV
Perhaps the reason more people talk about their tools than their work is that tools are just there, while showing the fruits of your labor is sort of opening yourself up, and I suspect some folks aren't comfortable with that.
That's an interesting observation, and one I think makes sense. A lot of what I build would likely seem mundane - a built in single door oak cabinet; a painted pine book case; etc. While not "fine" in terms of ornate or stylized; they all are pleasing to me in that it's satisfying to live with the products of your own hands and know they are well made. My most recent project - built in a week - is an aquarium stand/cabinet. They wanted $300 and up for the ones at the store made from particle board covered with adhesive backed plastic wood grain print. The ones at the store were also no ideal in terms of height for where we wanted to put it. I used a couple planks of 8/4 maple along with some other scraps of figured maple for panels in the ends and doors, and before you knew it I had a very sturdy cabinet. If I posted a picture, I doubt it would interest anyone much though.
I used hand tools to make the 24 M&Ts and planes for most all of the panel flattening, smoothing, and shaping work. If you want to discuss any "hows" of that, I'm happy to do so. I'm always amazed how much better my sawing is by about the 10th tenon. Not to brag, but by the end, those babies were dead to the lines right off the saw. That kind of satisfaction can't be bought. ;-)
p.s. Ann Rand is sophomoric hooey. Self reliance and personal responsibility are, of course, important things to strive for and encourage, but are not the only things. There is little virtue in selfishness.
Edited 10/18/2007 10:16 am ET by Samson
Actually wasn't it you that posted pictures of your workshop and that nice tool cabinet you made? I find that kind of stuff very interesting.
But I know what you mean. The last piece I made was a hutch for my wife, before our 2nd child was born. She had been itching for one for a while, but she didn't know what she wanted (she needs to see it first). She saw one in Woodsmith, liked it, demanded I build it. So I did. She loves painted pine. So that's what I made it out of. It's not fancy, nor terribly well made, so I would never show that to a knowing crowd. But my wife likes it, and her friends are suitably impressed, so I guess that's what matters. Oh and I enjoyed building it, which matters too.
Someday my kids will be older, and I will have more time to actually do this thing. At that time, maybe I will actually feel like jumping into a debate about ruler tricks and cambers. My shop work now is mostly rustproofing.
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
Actually wasn't it you that posted pictures of your workshop and that nice tool cabinet you made?
Yeah, but shop furniture is like tools sort of as far as putting yourself "out there." No one expects shop furniture to be "fine;" functional and sturdy is enough. Functional and sturdy are my sweet spots! When I design pieces from scratch I usually tend to hew to the exhortations of guys like Stickley - the Shakers - etc. where function dictates form and not a lot of ornamentation is added. I like simple - I like when the wood does most of the talking.
Good point. Shop fixtures are like tools, whereas furniture opens up more of a view into one's personality.
I like the wood to do the talking as well. Too bad my wife likes to gag the wood with paint. :-)
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
Samson,
I too have an acquarium and would very much like to see your stand. We have a wrought iron stand and am contemplating (read wife wants me to make) a cabinet for underneath to store tank stuff.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Hey, Bob. I'll try to take some pics over the weekend and either post 'em or e-mail them to you. It's a pretty straightforward cabinet - sort of like a mini-sideboard. It's also fairly low (22" or so high) for two reasons: 1- my daughter is only 6 and we wanted her to be able to easily see in and even feed the fish; and 2- with the 18" high tank and 4-5" lid, we needed the total height less than 4" to allow easy access to light switches on the wall where our tank (29 gallon) lives.
Thanks for the interest.
All this talk about aquariums.Something sounds fishy to me.
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
I'm trying to lure Samson into showing us how to make fishtail joints. Ssssshhh, don't tell him, OK?
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 10/18/2007 12:07 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
The joints on the curved walnut stretchers on this step stool I made my daughter look a little like fish tails:
Samson,
This is incredible!
That's exactly what my wife wants for the kitchen! What is it with you? That's twice in one day you've done something that the wife wants me to make. I just really like that stool.
I better stay away from you.
Many, many, many thanks!
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I have a wife too. LOL
Samson
That is beautiful work. I like it very much.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Samson,
The doves are going to be angry with the fish about this tails discussion. I thought stepstools were stepstools, but yours is special. Your choice of contrasting woods is very nice. The joinery is very special. What woods did you use?
Did you run into any interesting issues as you put it together?
Thanks,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
That there stool is not for the faint of heart! I printed it out (hope Samson doesn't mind) and when you take a real close look, there are numerous challenges in the piece. Look at all the angled joinery!
I made the mistake of showing it to the wife. You know the rest of that story!
In all fairness to the OP, I think a new discussion is in order. Stay tuned.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 10/18/2007 1:18 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Edited 10/18/2007 1:19 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Bob
I think the joinery is pretty straight forward. Don't be intimidated. Samson does it very nicely (very nicely indeed!). However, the curved stretcher is really just a straight stretcher that is curved.
I did something similar on a sofa table a couple of months ago. (Just remembered to take these pictures as I was gluing up!)
View Image
You can make the stretcher any shape you like as long as you align the mortice and tenons.
View Image
Regards from Perth
Derek
You can make the stretcher any shape you like as long as you align the mortice and tenons.
Absolutely right. To be more precise for the walnut curved stretchers on the stool, the dovetail lap replaces the M&T, so it is the shoulders that are key. The great thing is that you can mark the shoulders right from the assembled legs as the stretchers' precise placement is arbitrary.
Oh yeah, and thank you for the kind remarks. Coming from a great woodworker like yourself, I'm thrilled. I'm gonna be smiling all day
Edited 10/18/2007 2:06 pm ET by Samson
Samson,
Very nice work . technically and design-wise but also a fine object of utility, you have created there. I hope to make something as well-integrated and individual one day.
'Ere, you must be one o' them proper Knots persons, showing work and discussing its ins and outs. I was begining to think they'd all been locked up somewhere in Memphis. :-)
Lovely stuff.
Lataxe, your admirer.
Lataxe,
You're a pesky little bulldog ain't ya! Now I know where they got that name.
Are you also responsible for making Korky that honery towards pooches?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I'm gonna get a big head out his silly little stool. Not that I'm not satisfied with it, but I guess I never thought of it as "fine" woodworking. My style tends more toward the "primitive" than the Queen Anne. But I builds for myself and family; if anyone else likes it, that's gravy. This stool is dear to my heart as I built it for my daughter to get in and out of her (at the time) new big girl bed. I do think there's a bit of a father's love in those joints that maybe shows through?
I've no doubt that your work is great - heck, you've built scores of things and you keep at at it. I'd love to see some. Do post. Come on in, the water's fine. i already know you make lovely workbenches, mallets, and dovetails. Let's have a cabinet or table or something, eh?
Your friend,
Samson-the-blushing
Samson,
I can't get the Taunton photo attachment thing to work so normally I put pics in one o' them photostore places on the web and point to it. This is where the next item (a large oak trestle table) will be posted in a week or so.
I been oiling the girt undercarriage today - again; takes forever to get 5 coats on. A friend is calling this weekend to help me wrestle the immense top out of the plano press so I can breadboard end it. Then I must transport it to bonnie Scotland. I may need to hire a small ship. :-)
Meanwhile, here are some links to existing posts of some past pieces; and one to a WKFinetools article about the last major item made, a Greene & Greene desk.
There are some other pics in posts within Knots but I cannae find them.
You will notice I favour easy joinery. :-)
Lataxe
http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=30647.31
http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=30379.1
http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=30464.7
http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=33300.40
http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=33822.137
http://www.wkfinetools.com/tUsing/art/green&Green/g&green1.asp
Edited 10/18/2007 4:40 pm ET by Lataxe
You will notice I favour easy joinery. :-)
Yeah, this one seemed particularly no-frills:
http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/at.asp?webtag=fw-knots&guid=070C7E0F-98DB-4263-85CD-CC67C6276265&frames=no
It'll take me some time to digest your myriad works. I got to pay more attention to the Gallery apparently!
That Greene and Greene desk is a tour de force! I will henceforth imagine you seated at it whenever reviewing one of your posts.
Sincerely,
Samson-the-impressed.
Edited 10/18/2007 4:56 pm ET by Samson
Hi Derek,
Could I impose upon you to post this over on the joinery forum - Just a simple Step Stool discussion I started so as not to hijack the discussion.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,"In all fairness to the OP, I think a new discussion is in order. Stay tuned."The heck with a new thread. We are going for 400 posts.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Hi Mel,
Too late, I started a new one in Joinery. I don't want to mutter this one up. Besides there's real good stuff in here and I'm sure it will get up there anyway.
What do you think of beveling both sides of a thick plane iron, that way you couldn't tell if it was BU or BD? :-)
Actually different angles, that way you could just flip it for a different angle! And you'd have a back bevel for dealing with the wear issue!
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 10/18/2007 3:07 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Here's the stand, Bob:
http://good-times.webshots.com/album/561128505frgCzs
Nothing fancy - very simple design. I made it in a week working a couple hours a night, so it's a bit rough here and there.
Maple
spalted maple side panels
Cherry door panels
Baltic birsh ply 3/8 for back and 3/4 for floor of the cabinet.
Samson,
Oh that's a nice un.
I'm curious as to how you constructed the sides into the legs. Looks like traditional M&T with panels but am interested in how you incorporated the panels and legs. I'm probable not wording that correctly................
Also, there is another discussion about acquarium construction that you might want to have a look at/post your link.
Nicely done as usual.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I'm curious as to how you constructed the sides into the legs. Looks like traditional M&T with panels
Yup, tenons nthe horizontal members and mortises in the legs with a 3/4 inch groove running around the inside of the frame they define to house the panel.
Samson,
Thanks, that gives me an idea for a design I'm working on. The doors I'm thinking about will use ½" baltic birch for the panels and ¾" rails and stiles with cock beading.
Thanks again,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I used Baltic birch on door and wainscoting once, and wished I hadn't. It was almost impossible to sand it smooth enough to look good once painted. Maybe I was unlucky, because there are apparently several grades of Baltic, and it doesn't all come from the same place. The stuff I can get is unbeatable for strength, e.g. for jigs, but I wouldn't trust it where it's displayed in furniture.
Jim
I'm hiring. See my post above for what I'm looking for.
Edited 10/18/2007 7:57 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
I'll take your word for it that you are a skilled woodworker and an accomplished furniture maker. There's no available independent evidence for that, so I must rely on your self-evaluation.
Donald... I'm not trying to defend Charlie; he's more than capable of doing that for himself, but I tell ya, having worked pretty damn hard these past 20 years to become an accomplished wireman, if I was on the receiving end of so many cheap shots calling my ability to wire into question simply because I don't post pics of my work, or extol the virtues of one wire stripper over another, I'd become a pretty cantankerous auld bar-steward too...
As a professional woodworker, Charlie's bound by the extract from the site User Agreement listed below; posting pics of his work could be seen as advertising...
3. No-Commercialization Policy. You agree to use the Sites, Discussions and Fee-Based Services only in a noncommercial manner and in compliance with Taunton Interactive, Inc.'s No-Commercialization Policy. You specifically agree not to post, transmit or otherwise distribute to the Sites (including without limitation any Forum) any material containing any solicitation of funds, advertising or solicitation for goods or services. We encourage you to report any apparent violation to us by email: [email protected].
On different forums, on occasion I've taken the time to write fairly long posts re how a loom should be constructed, the dangers to avoid, techniques to employ to avoid getting into trouble in the first place, but I've never posted pics of my own work, and only with extreme reluctance will I lend opinion of a non professionals attempts at it. Having spent so long training myself to be hyper critical of my own work in order to see things through a clients perspective, it's all but impossible to switch that off so's not to hurt any feelings.
Gloating about fancy tool acquisitions is all fine and well, but if those tools aren't being put to their intended use even occasionally, they're little more than fancy paperweights and door stops for all the good they're doing; the tools are merely a means to an end, not an end unto itself. True skill isn't in the measure of how well you tune a tool, but in what you produce using said tuned tools. Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Laddae, Bollocks . Are ye short of Drambuie or what?
The reason why Charles, latterly known as Taunting Macoute, attracts a little heat is that a)he does enjoy it and b)he is obnoxious.
As for calling for pictures I believe this is a normal thing for anyone to do and does not necessarily mean that integrity is being questioned. This is a forum and we should be seeing a lot more pictures of work done or being done-by anybloodybody. Ofcourse, more exotic bodies will attract more requests for pictures, ken?
Now, since when is a professional woodworm nae allowed to post pics of his work for fear of advertising accusations or having some sort of commercial agenda? Do you mean that if I for example post a picture of ####military chest or even, gawd save us all, a Boutique Plane, in response to a query or to illustrate a point, I am to be shot at dawn by who actually? Nae, bollocks laddae, think again. You mean we can't even see a picture of a nice saw handle by Mike W? Or bow saw making by B. Smalser?
"Gloating about fancy tool acquisitions is all fine and well, but if those tools aren't being put to their intended use even occasionally, they're little more than fancy paperweights and door stops for all the good they're doing; the tools are merely a means to an end, not an end unto itself. True skill isn't in the measure of how well you tune a tool, but in what you produce using said tuned tools".
Well, I see very little gloating on this particular forum, and would like to know how you have ascertained that "those tools aren't being put to their intended use even occasionally."
You see, contrary to what Taunting Macoutey Baby has said , woodworking is NOT just about "building things"-it is about all things to do with the act(s) of working wood in order to build things. Good God man, if you don't understand how tools, machines or the bloody accounts work you will not go too far. So, since this is a forum composed largely of hobbyists, there will be talk of many things....
Now, when are we to see pictures of that tool cabinet ye mentioned about two years ago?Philip Marcou
Laddae, Bollocks . Are ye short of Drambuie or what?
<!----><!----> <!---->
Forsooth... is this the mating call of the Lowland antipodean metal basher I hear before me..?? A fine feathered fowl if ever I saw one... ;P~
<!----> <!---->
For the record, I never touch Drambuie.. we keep the stuff to sell to girlies, southern softies n tourists... makes for suitable anti-freeze so they can tolerate the extremes of our summer weather... <!----><!---->
As for calling for pictures I believe this is a normal thing for anyone to do and does not necessarily mean that integrity is being questioned.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Personally Phillip, I agree with ya... despite recent enforced curtailment in hands on shop time, I’m always looking for new ideas; seeing pics of a well designed and beautifully built piece never fails to fuel my desire to improve my own skills although I’m kidding myself if I believe that one day I’d ever be as good as that.
<!----> <!---->
But, see... the thing is... it’s nae my forum... nae my rules.. nae me that’s responsible for policing the rules neither... I just agreed to abide by them when I registered, as did everybody else here I might add... All it takes is one moderator adding their own interpretation...
<!----> <!---->
Now personally, while I’ve a prob with posts that are little more than glorified infomercials... I don’t have a prob with anyone (pro or otherwise) posting pics of their work to illustrate a point or technique... but there’s a fine line to distinguish one from the other and I’m sure you’ll recognise that here’s been times when that line’s become somewhat obscured, others when it’s been ignored altogether... If we don’t moderate ourselves, the mods do it for us, making it plain that they’d prefer they didn’t have to...
<!----> <!---->
Well, I see very little gloating on this particular forum, and would like to know how you have ascertained that "those tools aren't being put to their intended use even occasionally." <!----><!---->
Phillip... to be honest with ya... I’ve far too much going on to give a hoot one way or the other over how folk put the tools they buy to use, though it rankles me to see collectors pushing up the price of desirable tools beyond the reach of would-be users of them. But the mere fact that I’ve a large collection of what some think of as fancy tools doesn’t make me a cabinetmaker simply through their possession... It’s what I DO with them that counts..
<!----> <!---->
<!----> <!---->
Now, when are we to see pictures of that tool cabinet ye mentioned about two years ago?<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Unfortunately, the case for the tool chest suffered a structural failure during its construction; perhaps it’s just as well that it failed when it did... failing after completion coulda had disastrous consequences... Other projects have kept me away from redesigning it since then; the worsening heart condition has had a disastrous affect on my available hands on shop time too... So no tool chest for a while yet I’m afraid...
<!----> <!---->
Besides... woulda needed to make it bigger anyway.. ;) Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Aye yaiyai....structural failure in the case?? ....Especially during construction-suggests to me that there may have been loss of temper.....Sounds intriguing-did you keep the evidence, and have the culprits been apprehended yet? Nae pictures available to the press?
Your interpretation of the forum rules would not stand up to close examination, but let us not go there now.
As for your lack of appreciation of that finest of elixirs: we cannae hold it against you but I must say you have sadly underrated it. In my experience it is on a par with Southern Comfort and Glyva, but you are right : the ladies do love it. I have employed it to pacify cat vendors and other spitty types: no bachelor should be without it.Philip Marcou
Aye yaiyai....structural failure in the case?? ....Especially during construction-suggests to me that there may have been loss of temper.....Sounds intriguing-did you keep the evidence, and have the culprits been apprehended yet?
Loss of temper..?? Noooooo..that wasn't the cause, though I'll freely admit to getting pi$$'d off at the time.... One of the glue joints failed as the carcass was being moved; my shop's too small to have largee pieces under construction set aside while I get on with other pieces. As it was moved, it was subjected to torque... the joint that failed received the bulk of the leverage and cried enough... I thought my material selection (12mm cabinet grade birch ply) and tightness of the joint (had to slim the tennon with a shoulder plane till it fitted) along with a nice warm shop and new fresh glue were enough to prevent that... but alas...
No pics to show... they wouldn't highlight anything... with the torque released, the offending piece eased back into place with a howl reminescent of Derek's wallet opening... enough t put the fear o God in ya, I tell ye... ;)
I might get around to regluing the joint; downrate the carcass for lighter, bulkier stuff. But right now it's pretty low priority... I'm in the middle of some life changing decisions that are keeping me up half the night trying to assess them.
Ye live and learn though... The tool tray for the cabinet will ride again hopefully in the not too distant future in a case sporting more dovetails than dado's; if at first ye don't succeed, build it bigger, better, stronger, right...?
In my experience it is on a par with Southern Comfort and Glyva
<chucklin...
Aye... well... that explains my preference for ummm none of the above... My normal glass is a vintage Port... I've a weakness for one particular 20 year old that's sheer poetry in a glass. If however, there's a need for sterner stuff, Capn Morgans... the only thing worthy to add to is is mooooooreeeee Morgans... t'hell wi yon airy fairy mixers n diluters... Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
But, see... the thing is... it’s nae my forum... nae my rules.. nae me that’s responsible for policing the rules neither... I just agreed to abide by them when I registered, as did everybody else here I might add... All it takes is one moderator adding their own interpretation...
<!----> <!---->
Now personally, while I’ve a prob with posts that are little more than glorified infomercials... I don’t have a prob with anyone (pro or otherwise) posting pics of their work to illustrate a point or technique... but there’s a fine line to distinguish one from the other and I’m sure you’ll recognise that here’s been times when that line’s become somewhat obscured, others when it’s been ignored altogether... If we don’t moderate ourselves, the mods do it for us, making it plain that they’d prefer they didn’t have to...
Oh Mike, that is all twaddle.
Let's take the point of your finding justification why Charles does not post pictures of his work here. You say someone on this forum may just object and view them as commercial. The thing is that Charlie does not alter his stance from one forum to another. He may act in an unstable manner in his interpersonal dealings, but he is stably unstable in all he does/writes. I have said this before, every time a professional woodworker opens his mouth on this forum he is acting as an advertisement for himself. When Larry says "do it my way", he may as well be saying, "my goods are better than the goods of others" (and, for the record, I have a great deal of respect for Larry's products. They are highly respected. I also have a great deal of respect for his knowledge - just not the way he imparts it). So where do you draw the line? What you are doing is taking a side, and it is very evident to the rest of us that you are and, therefore, biased in your opinions and pronouncements. Now we all have biases, and this is normal, but we have to make a decent attempt to provide some objectivity. Since your comment about "infomercials" is no doubt a (poorly disguised) poke at the reviews I write, I must say what I do, this being that I offer as much viewable and observable evidence as possible. What I get in return, from critics like Charlie and yourself, is just opinionated rhetoric. I write to the forums for debate, and my understanding of debate is that this involves argument that is substantiated by evidence.
I, too, like to see the output of others, especially those that hold such strong opinions. Sometimes one must put up or shut up.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek Derek Derek,,, ya know, there's times when I genuinely donno whether to laugh at you, pity you or give a verbal slap up side yer heid..!! For someone who professes to work from the neck up, ye dinna half talks dome twaddle... geeze...
So I've an opinion... Of COURSE I have an opinion; in that respect I'm no different to anybody else. Your problem seems to be dismissive of anyone with a point of view that differs to your own highly limited and blinkered opinions; it's natural for you to dismiss them as "unbelievers"... Every bit as natural as it is for me and countless dozens of others through the forums to dismiss you as a highly self opinionated and vociferous eejit. The concept of humility is very obviously alien to you, and until such times as you overcome that failing, you've fundamentally handicapped yourself from ever figuring out what the real point is behind all this...
Whether or no Charlie chooses to explain his reasons for being as he is or keeping his work to himself is entirely up to him; the last I heard, the US was a free country, and as a US citizen he's free to choose to act how he pleases without being accountable to you or anyone else (within legal reason of course).
For myself, I choose not to post pics simply because I don't need the ego trip. The vast majority of my work doesn't come close to being called Fine Woodworking irrespective of the interpretation; I'm enough of a self critic to see and recognize my mistakes, invariably applying the lessons learned to the next project.
Case in point was the fault I inadvertantly built into the bed project I built a few years back; Evidently I didn't build enough squeek into the compound springs that took the place of box springs... a 2 year auld red headed tear-away hell bent on schlobbering the livin daylights outa anyone within grappling range has resulted from that particular failing... but I live and learn...
My opinions are a product of evolving technique, tooling and experience of starting my projects from slabs of tree (when it's 9ft long, greater than 2ft wide and over inch n quarter thick, calling it a board is an insult), and working said slab from the rough (chainsaw mill apparently) into a flat, level and warp free surface. The process has been well enough documented both here als elsewhere that I shouldn't need to repeat it.
Anyway... it's late (or early) and I've a comision to complete today... Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
One suspects they would not be interested in such a shop. They (like I) would learn that working wood for a living is actually "working", and it can suck a lot of the fun out of it. I tried that and went back to twiddling in the garage. All these threads about plane fettling are quite unsettling if you have no real-life experience to draw on, I agree. To come in here with questions about your first hand plane, and then see the wildly divergent (and apparently venomous) opinions on how to do things with it, is enough to make one go buy another belt sander and say the hell with it. I have my own questions but rather than start another donnybrook I just tend to forget about them.
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
Charles,
I have made a chair or two in the past, and caused some few thousands to be made, but nonetheless a short stint with you at the chair bodging face is attractive if only for the healthy lunches. Could you send me an air ticket so that I may review the premises and other facilities you mentioned?
Here's what I don't understand: you have said that "Nine-tenths of you blokes don't have a fu*cking clue ", on the one hand, yet on the other hand you now want to recruit an assistant bodger to do the manual stuff (whilst you are out soliciting clients)- from these very same clueless people?I assume the remaining 1/10th do have a clue and so will not apply for the post. Will the same diplomacy be applied to clients?
Another thing that may be worth thinking on is the fact that anyone possessing at least 9/10th's of the attributes you require including decent jeans, Dingoes and waistcoat is likely to twig onto making those chairs faster than you can solicit suitable clients, kick your own keester and take up efficient chair making on his own account.
Another question: do any of the chairs, which we have yet to see ,
have any turned parts? If so, is the prospective cluel, er student, expected to power the lathe by feet or his own flexible pole?
Curved parts such as backs legs stretchers seat frames rails rungs etc are these at least to be sawn out by bandsaw? If not , who is to pay for this-you or the client?
Now this reference to $2000 boutique planes and plane socks on this forum is very naughty of you-don't you know that I am not allowed to pay you for this advertising on this here forum? Furthermore, if you cannot even get the basic description correct, how on earth are you going to make a nice chair for an unsuspecting client, let alone teach one of the 9/10th's how to sip wine at midday in an elegant fashion?Philip Marcou
Philip,
I sense your frustration with Toothless Macoute. He describes himself as currently on the downside of a mediocre career, during which most of his chair sales were to a single client. As you said, none of us has ever seen a photo of his work, if he has indeed done any. Actually one of us has. Toothless told me that he sent a photo of one of his pieces to Derek because he respects Derek. It is easy to read between the lines as to what he feels about everyone else. I guess that he doesn't feel that Derek will steal his designs. I have tried to ascertain what Toothless is trying to do with the approach he takes on Knots. Best I can tell is that talking down to others builds himself up in his own eyes. One can only feel sorry for him on that score. But once in a while, I sense that Toothless feels as if he has a "higher calling". He seems to think that God left him with a responsibility to poke holes in other people's bad woodworking habits. For example, some poor newbie recently got a post from Toothless, who did his best to make the newbie feel like a fool for having made the error of assuming that is one coat of wax is good, then seven is better. To me, the worst thing that one can do to a newbie is to ridicule him/her. One needs to help the newbie understand what is wrong and how to fix it without reducing their already low self esteem. Interestingly, Toothless has ridiculed Forestgirl for trying to eliminate bad behavior on Knots, but he himself is always telling people to stop their stupid woodworking practices. Heck, he has insulted Mike Wenzloff's business practices and Derek's research on sharpening, etc etc etc. So I guess he is a bit two-faced. He likes to tell others not to be policemen, but he wants the role. But his propensity to be two-faced is not limited to the difference between his actions and words on policing Knots. He also has the habit of kissing up to a person, and insulting the same person, all within a day or a few days. He has done this recently to Derek, Mike and Forestgirl. There was a time when I tried very hard to help Toothless see how his behavior is hurting himself. It certainly doesn't help him get the business he is looking for, and it doesn't help him earn respect from the group of people that he would like to think that he is part of (the professionals on Knots). His refusal to post a photo of even his earliest work, for fear that people will steal his ideas, is the behavior of a misanthrope. He just doesn't like people -- which is consistent with his writing style.If I were you, I wouldn't invite him into an argument. Mom used to say two things that seem appropriate here:
1) Never argue with a fool. Bystanders can't tell which is which.
2) Never fight with a pig. You will both get dirty, and the pig loves to get dirty. My advice to you is NOT to point out the problems with what he says. There is no need to do that. Everyone else sees it. RATHER, you should invite him to make more such posts and to take his behavior to extremes. In Alcoholics Anonomous, they say that a person will not stop drinking until "he has reached his low point." Toothles has not yet felt that he has reached his low point. If there is any chance of him ever becoming a member of the community that he loves to insult, he must feel that he has reached a "low", and want to climb out. If that ever happens, there will be many around here who would be happy to help him. Until then,
Non illigitimi carborundum. = Don't let the b*st*rds get you down.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Hell, Mel, Ah aint dawgfighting atall. I do enjoy Taunting Macoute, split personality and all-proof that there is more to woodworking than "just building things".I see him as part of the overall Diaspora of Woodworms out there.Philip Marcou
Philip,
Glad to hear it.
Based on your last message to him, I was concerned that you thought you could reason with him. Now I know better.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
If you are in Memphis, I wouldn't mind having an assistant who wants to learn chairmaking.
Dear Charlie
I’d like to put my hand up for this job!
I need at least a six month commitment (would rather have more) and no fewer than 25 hours a week, although you can hang around for more hours if you want. <!----><!----><!---->
Does this include the time that I require for honing the cambers on my bevel up plane blades? I am not sure that it is enough.
The 25 hours are no problem, though. I am usually free between 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. You know how I manage to pack things into a day.
The more skills you come to the party with, the more I can afford to pay you. <!----><!---->
Well you’ve seen my work, which you have praised … but … will payment cover the cost of transport? To-and-from home each day may be costly. Is Memphis far from Perth? I have a bicycle and basket at the front for my hand planes.
This is a perfect opportunity for a reasonably accomplished woodworker already working for himself or herself but who wants to either add chairmaking to their skill set or refine their chairmaking skills.<!----><!---->
I have oodles of experience in chairmaking but I am looking to learn old tricks. I built a camp chair for my father when I was 12 years old (out of Pine. It had hand-chopped mortice-and-tenon joints and all). He used it when he went to watch rugby, and it survived the many times he threw it at and hit the ref.
You will be hand planing a lot of lumber. I don't give a poop how it gets done as long as it gets done. I don't work wood with machines and then try to find every mark the machines leave and then obliterate them. That's a fool's errand as far as I'm concerned. Handmade - start to finish.<!----><!---->
I will bring my LA Jack and Marcou smoother. And cambered blades. Especially the radically cambered one. Have you a 240 volt plug for my surface grinder/belt sander for when I need to do a little sharpening, or do I need to use the hand crank on it?
I'm not worried about the IRS. <!----><!---->
I'm not worried about the IRS either. I won’t be declaring my income. You too?
I'll buy your lunch every day. I leave the shop and eat a decent lunch - no bologna sandwiches. You need to be able to drink a glass of wine or two at lunch and not have it blow your whole afternoon. <!----><!---->
I think that you and I will get along well. I also don’t eat bologna sandwiches (.. what are they in Australia? Do you like Kangaroo?). But I certainly do welcome the opportunity to get motherless at lunch. Invite your mates along! Mate, more’s the merrier! I am very sociable and will drink them under the table with you at my side. Are we expected to work after lunch? I can do so, but my sawing might get a little shaky..
I socialize at lunch, and not at places like Shirley's on Summer Avenue. This is how I develop my business. You need to bring a sport coat to work every day in case we meet a client someplace decent for lunch. Something that looks good with jeans, and a change of shoes that will look good with a pair of jeans. A neat, professional appearance is a must at all times. <!----><!---->
Hey, mate … my wife (Shiela) says I scrub up quite well. Can I wear flip-flops with the jeans and jacket? (I’d call them “thongs” but you might get the wrong idea … heh .. heh).
I'm building Windsors, Chippendale, other dead guys' stuff, and some of my own designs. Most of what I'm doing is on commission, but I squeeze a few spec chairs in when I can. I need more time to work on spec stuff and my own designs - that's where you come in.<!----><!---->
I have a few ideas of my own, if you are interested. I know that you will need my help as you are not an original thinker.
If you're interested, let me know….This is an opportunity to see how it really works.<!----><!---->
It certainly would be!
Regards from Perth
Derek
You're welcome any time. We don't stop to experiment with planes, however. We draw and/or incise lines on wood and use planes, chisels, and saws to remove the wood up to the lines and then we glue the parts together.
How you remove the wood up to the line I'll leave to you.
Mostly, I need somebody who knows where to draw the lines, or can learn pretty quickly where to draw them. Practically anybody can remove the wood. In fact, if you are a good enough line drawer, and especially for you, I'd hire somebody else to remove the wood for you and you can leave your kit at home. That will save you a few quid in shipping charges. The only thing I'd want to see in your hand is a No. 2 Dixon Ticonderoga - the most powerful tool in your kit, I'd be hoping.
I need somebody that can learn layout. I need somebody that can take a sketch I've done, produce a prototype and then build sets while I go out and sell and show the design. I've got to get out of the shop more than I am able to now.
Worrying about whether or not a bevel up plane could take a camber would be pure, frivolous luxury. Hey, maybe I'm just jealous!
I wish that there was some way I could express, or show you, how insignificant the tools become. They just become an extension of your hand. You quit even thinking about them. I can find tool twaddlers all day long. The magazines and forums like this have created a dime-a-dozen commodity of these.
I need a guy (or gal) who thinks furniture. Constantly.
Edited 10/18/2007 7:47 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
TaunTon:If you are still interested in having a helper/apprentice, I would very much like to explore that with you (in private).My e-mail address is:[email protected]Liveoak
I offer myself up for ridicule, I know. But I would like to offer a beginner's perspective.
Danny... if any of the cantankerous auld sods here dare to ridicule your honesty, poke em in the eye..!! With no exceptions, each and every one of us in here started out in exactly the same way; loadsa desire hampered by loadsa cluelessness... we've all had to start by learning the basics, mastering them and adapting technique to suit differing tools and tasks. If there's some who beg to differ, it wouldn't do them any harm to have some of the air let outa their ego; humility never hurt anyone...
What I'm getting at is, if you have a problem, dinna be shy... the biggest asset in this forum is the wealth of experience it can bring to bear. For any given problem there's usually a multitude of answers, some more apporpriate than others, and it's up to you to decide which best suit your particular application.<!----><!---->Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Regards from Perth..I was in Australia only two times.. Long trip and did not really wake up for a few days.. USA here and I played my first Cricket match with the locals.. I think I won the match and the folks showed be this big brown snake and I thought better! That sucker was longer than I was!Just funnin' ya.. I asked why no animals to be seent around here.. They said don't ask!
Edited 11/2/2007 11:11 am by WillGeorge
"If I were new to the craft, I would have a real sense of hopelessness when reading a lot of your threads. I would have real doubt as to whether or not I could get a few edge tools ready for work, much less take on projects requiring really serious woodworking skills."
Why am I not surprised that you hold beginners in such low regard?
-Steve
Why am I not surprised that you hold beginners in such low regard?
Steve... in all seriousness, I reckon Charlie's right on the money... I mean, I understand what Derek's trying to do... sorta kinda.. (filed it under extreme fetish but that's beside the point)... but despite that, what I canna get my head around is WHYYYYY...?? Any rookie or newbie trying to make sense of this would be slashing their wrists by now in despair...
I've been woodbashin with handraulic tools long enough now to have a fair idea of what I'm trying to do and what I need to do to get there but I'm damned if I can see any advantage by taking a blade that's harder than "normal", thicker than "normal" and downside up by design and then attempting to do something that an authority on the subject (I've no reason to call Larry's experience into question) says is gonna require 3x more effort in material removal to get to the same start point... I mean... it takes some serious massochism to go ahead n do what he's trying to do with a deck stacked so far against him... WHYYYYY...?? What's the point..??
To me... doing something like this, just cos ya can seems... well... kinda childish to be honest, not to mention wastful of a pretty good blade...
<shrugs...
maybe it's just me, but personally I'm with Charlie... there's a history of far FAR simpler ways of achieving the same end... for a REASON... rocket science this aint, believe me...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
All this, dare one say, folderol, puts me to mind of the comment about the dancing pig: "One is amazed, not that he does it well, but that he does it at all."
I suppose that it is all well and good for someone to take a plane/iron configuration - low angle, bevel-up, that was traditionally (I know, four letter word) used for trimming miters, and make it into a fore/jack plane. And sure, and all, I get the rationale about multiple, variable attack angles for smoothing. But, deed, and be hammed, it is really about playing with planes and irons, grinders,and sanders, and linishers ( now we need a linisher!), innit, and not about working wood. But hey, if that's what floats your boat... I'm all for it. Heck, I spent an hour on Sunday just twiddlin' the knobs on the Indian's carbureter. Think I found that sweet spot, too!
Ray
hang on now Ray... stop the bus... Woodbashin is a no brainer... metalbashin... well... I guess there's worse fetishes to have... but expectin poor Derek to do all this stuff, scribe the prose and shoot the pics that "have" to ride shotgun ANDDD expectin him to dance a jig while he's doin it... that's gonna cost him a finger or two at the very least... yon belt thingie's a visious lookin beast if ever I saw one and that's without it being switched on...
Heck, I spent an hour on Sunday just twiddlin' the knobs on the Indian's carbureter. Think I found that sweet spot, too!
I'd ummmmm... keep quiet about that if I were you... just in case... if her other half finds out, he's gonna send the boys round t sort you out, and ye ken how them injuns are for war trophies..Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Good lord - this is the most argumentative forum I've ever seen, which says a LOT considering this is the internet and all...
Person A says "x cannot be done, and it's a waste of time to try"
Person B says "I think X can be done, and here's how I did it and the pictures to document it in detail"
Persons C, D and E chime in with "Why the hell would you do X - you're an idiot"
The guy was responding to a post that this was impossible, looks to have done a pretty good job at least approximating doing it, and now you have nothing better to do but ridicule him for trying? Larry responds based on merit, and offers detailed reasons for his objections, and at least I get to learn from that.
But now some of you leap obnoxiously into the conversation to say the conversation is stupid? THe whole "newcomers" argument is ridiculous - you would have no objection to talking about advaned topics if it wasn't something you happen to disagree with. I don't think Derek is the one that needs a life here. Whether it's the best way, silly, or not, if the best you can do is spew venom perhaps your time would be better spent kicking neighborhood dogs instead.
Bunch of adolescent kids on the playground if you ask me...
don't forget about person F who comes in to perform y, which is to critisize persons C, D, and E for criticisizing the point of x. Act y by person F is the first non-woodworking related act performed. (not half as bad as act z currently being performed by person G.) A lot more is being accomplished than person A telling B that their crosscut sleds look great despite fatal flaws. Tell me you aren't learning something...If nothing else, you're learning to question the advise you receive, which is a significant notion.
touche`.
bye
hang in there rookie... if ya thought that lot was good... ust wait a while... gets muuuuuuuuuuuch better...
;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
"Any rookie or newbie trying to make sense of this would be slashing their wrists by now in despair..."
Sorry, but no. First of all, Derek isn't posting in response to a newbie's question; he started a new thread. Derek introduces the problem under consideration, describes what he has done to solve it, then presents the results. Everything is up front and there to be evaluated at face value. At no point does he lift up a razor-sharp plane iron and say, "Listen up, kids. Do it this way or you're going to regret it."
It is supremely arrogant to suggest that a newbie can't tell the difference between what Derek does and the rudiments of woodworking. I know that I can read Derek's description of the making of a dovetail marker—out of Tasmanian blackwood and brass—and then without a second thought go to Lee Valley and order one of their anodized aluminum ones. What's preventing a beginner from doing the same?
If you really think that newbies are going to be intimidated by what Derek describes, perhaps you should try to convince the FWW editors to eliminate the Readers Gallery? Talk about intimidating....
Derek pushes the envelope. This is a Good Thing. It's how new knowledge is created. While there are certainly people in this forum who seem to prefer to live in the 18th Century, it's not for everyone.
If you don't like what's on TV, then change the channel or start your own network or whatever. Just don't go around making pronouncements about what is or isn't good for us to watch.
-Steve
the "secret" to cambering......
yeah right. this sounds like a Time-Life book, The "Secrets" of Cabinetmaking...Expert since 10 am.
If you really think that newbies are going to be intimidated by what Derek describes, perhaps you should try to convince the FWW editors to eliminate the Readers Gallery? Talk about intimidating....
This is by far the most assinine thing I've read on this forum in one hell of a long time. You do realize that woodworking is about building things, right?
Pushing the envelope of design and craftsmanship are one thing, pushing the envelope of plane iron cambering is quite another. To even remotely relate the two (or think that the former depends on the latter) is beyond idiotic.
Edited 10/15/2007 8:52 pm ET by TaunTonMacoute
"This is by far the most assinine thing I've read on this forum in one hell of a long time."
??? You mean you don't review your own messages before posting them?
-Steve
P.S. The word is "asinine" (one "s"), by the way.
Good morning.
I see that the children were out playing while I was away sleeping.
I was tempted for (all of a few minutes) to reply to some of the last posts, but have resisted the urge because no one will be reading.
With the exception of a couple of posters, such as Raney (thank you), the remainder of the recent posters have just one thing on their small minds - to beat their own drum. And such a small drum ... they have nothing of value to add so they persist in beating it.
Pity, because they effectively stop all reasonable discussion. With the exception of Larry, these posters do not discuss the points raised - no where do they offer any critical arguments or evidence, just opinion (that they probably got from someone else and have never bothered to evaluate it, just accept it literally). They remind me of the immature, little bully boys who would gang together and wander the kindergarten sandpits looking for fun because they lacked any individual thought.
Charlie, I did enjoy our little tet-a-tet (my) last night. But all good things must now come to an end.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek
I'm one of those newbies that someone else has been speaking on behalf of (did't bother to read his name) in this thread, all I would like to say is keep the posts coming people like you and many others in knots provide others like me with a large amount of inspiration.
I don't pretend to understand everything that is written here nor to pretend to agree with every detail but I know my knowledge of hand tools and the part they play in the woodworking puzzle continues to evolve due to the positive contributions made by "certain" contributors.
So I for one will continually look forward to reading more positive posts on the handtools forum....it is headed Hand Tools isn't it? Some other other guy seems to think it's a design/making forum.....go figure.
Cheers from across the ditch
John
Hi John
There is no fear that I will stop posting - I meant this only in regard to those who have nothing to offer other than distracting noises. (These are the noisy children who sit at the back of the class huddled together, making silly farting noises, then snigger when others look their way to see what is going on).
These forums are an opportunity to debate and share and learn and encourage ... and hopefully grow as woodworkers. Richard et al seem to enjoy distrupting this flow - why? I am sure that most here could answer that.
See you in another thread.
Regards from Perth
Derek
"Richard et al seem to enjoy distrupting this flow - why? I am sure that most here could answer that."
To save others attempting to read my mind I'll answer that for you Derek. I do this woodworking malarkey for a living, often for seven days a week and frequently for ten to sixteen hours a day. Woodworking forums are a place to answer a few woodworking questions, get involved in some woodworking debate from time to time, and have some fun, such as interposing daft comments into serious threads.
Woodworking forums are a minor hobby for me. My real hobby is rugby, and I'm very serious about it. Perhaps I'm as serious about my hobby as you are about yours, which I suspect is probably woodworking. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Richard,
What!? You don't need a linisher, and 25-35-50 degree bevels, to do woodworking?!? How about 12 different grits of automotive sanding paper, and a float-glass surface? In your heart of hearts, don't you crave a SharpSmartypants with all attendent attachments, jigs, and gewgaws?
In poking a little fun at those who are not dependent on a certain amount of woodworking productivity, I fear feelings have been hurt. That was not my intention. Indeed, I pointed out my own little pet project, and the time I spend- what is the word you Brits use? - Faffing? around in the sickle shop, twiddling with the carbureter. Recently, I purchased a carb float made of a new space-age material-hows that for pushing the limits- a float for a 70 yr old mechanism, made of a space age material-- and spent as much for it as someone else here probably did for a honing jig. G'wan, make fun of me for doing so- I'll probably spend a whole afternoon installing it, too! Good thing I don't work on Indians, for a living, though.
Let's get serious about giving credit to those exploring the fringes--Hey, Silly-Putty was invented by someone doing just that, probably the Slinky was, too.
Piling on, in the sandbox-ewww who let that cat in here!
Ray
PS, can one sharpen a travisher with a linisher?
You can sharpen a travisher with a linisher as long as it comes with the new and improved fabisher attachment.
Fabisher? I think we had a butler named Fabisher....
Edit:
It was Fabersham...got caught doing the nasty with the upstairs maid.
Edited 10/16/2007 11:25 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
I bet you went and succumbed to the charms of a plastic float to go into that seventy year old carb, Ray. What's wrong with a reproduction copper one, or whatever the original was? You're just a too happy knurled knob twiddler I can tell.
Have you ever thought of sticking computerised electronically controlled injectors into the cylinder head(s?) of that old rust heap of an Injun, ha, ha? Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Edited 10/16/2007 12:02 pm by SgianDubh
Richard,
You are right, it is an ultra modern closed-cell foam float. The originals were cork, coated in shellac! Don't hold up in today's fuel add'led times. What I'm replacing is a brass replacement, which since it is heavier than the original cork, tends to give somewhat sluggish performance. I hate to have a sluggish performance ;-))
Injectors, no, but believe it or not, there is an electronic ignition device available, to take the place of the points and condensor in the distributor. It can be hidden inside the original distr. cover, so no-one can tell, just like the foam float, and the kevlar (takes the place of Ray-bestos) clutch disc coatings! It is interesting (to me at least) that there are two schools of thought on restoring and riding these obsolete machines. Not unlike the hand or power tool debate on this site. One is of the mind that "If Indian were in business today, this is what they's be like"- electronic ignition, disc brakes, four speed transmission, w/ foot shift, etc, etc. The other is of the "ride 'em like they built 'em" thinking. Me, I'm somewhere in between (surprise surprise). After the 6v generator left me beside the road when it wouldn't keep a charge in the battery with headlites burning, I switched to 12 v. alternator. The modern clutch material reduces grabbiness (and stalling), that's a good thing, I reckon. Ditto the float material, which approaches more closely the the original designer's intent. When my knees give out, I may want to install an electric starter to replace the kicker....So far, I have resisted the temptation of right hand throttle, and am shifting by hand clutching by foot,as that is part of the Indian experience, like waving to Harley riders with the "wrong" hand and seeing the double-takes as I pass by.
Ray, the too-happy knob twiddler
Folderol and gewgaws.
You rarely disappoint.
T-T
That's me, all flim-flam, smoke, and mirrors. By the way old chap, that travisher of yours is simply ravishing, since you gave it a good linishing. Is that a triple-back-bevel, with a one and a half gainer, and a three cushion bank, on the edge?
Ta-ta, Taun-ton,
Ray
"Is that a triple-back-bevel, with a one and a half gainer, and a three cushion bank, on the edge?"
Not me, you'd be speaking of the Greg Louganis (aka "loose-anus") sharpening methodology. Not surprised some of our friends here use it.
Edited 10/17/2007 7:56 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
"PS, can one sharpen a travisher with a linisher?"
If you refer to a scorp then, at some risk of further derision from the iron-minded, the answer is yes. Not only can you sharpen one , you can also profile the edge , grind the bevel and polish the whole thing if you want. Very easily, in a very short time.Philip Marcou
philip,
Thanks for the info. I don't own a travisher, or a linisher, but do like the way the names trip off the tongue. I'd never heard of a linisher even, til just recently, here on the forum. Maybe someday, I'll get to see one!
Regards,
Ray
Ray,
A guy from Robert Sorby Ltd gave a demo on turning tools at the Washington Woodworkers Guild. He had a linisher with him. I would have called it a 2" vertical belt sander. But "Linisher" sounds better.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
There are numerous differences between a linisher or belt grinder and a belt sander, although they both use coated abrasive belts.
The main distinction is that a belt grinder is used for grinding and polishing metals, whilst belt sanders are for wood.
Belt grinders are run at speeds of at least 1500feet per minute-way too fast for wood, and with the correct belts can remove metal far quicker than stones-whilst the diameter of the contact wheel stays constant. Belt grinders are made in all kinds of configurations- simple ones will just have two wheels, but three wheels means more versatility regarding the platens and tool rests.
The Sorby guy most likely was using a belt grinder/linisher, as the increased speed over the woodworking equivalent means the the thing works efficiently on metals and requires far less pressure and runs cooler than stones.
These machines are versatile beyond imagination- I have seen ones specially made for polishing eggs-imagine what Ray could do with that....The same concept is used for things ranging from ships propellors and aircraft turbine vanes to scissors etc .
Very good machine-even the mini one with a one inch belt....Philip Marcou
To follow on from Philip ...
I have a belt sander. It is large - 6" wide belt - but runs at a relatively slow speed, 1400 rpm. This is half that of a standard bench grinder and the same speed as the slow machines. However, there much less chance of burning a blade on a belt sander than on a bench grinder, even the slow ones as the wide and long belt help to dissipate the heat. Use a very coarse belt (40 or 60 grit) if you are removing lots of steel. Move up to 120 grit if you are doing just a little. You can finish on 240 if you want a smooth primary bevel. I have, in fact, "sharpened", not just ground, on this machine as I have belts that go to 2000 grit! (although I have not used them this way for a long time). The edge one gets is amazing, especially when you finish on a strop.
My belt sander was a relatively cheap machine, about $300 AUD. It would be half this in the States - look at the Grizzly machine. They look identical (Mine is badged "Carba-tec"). 3/4 hp gives you all the power you could want.
The tool rest I use is a modification of one I built a few years ago in wood, and which was featured in FWW mag about a year ago. This one is my Mk II. For details of each, go to ..
Mk I: http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=14908&page=1&pp=15
M II: http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=16156
Regards from Perth
Derek
Philip,
Thank you for the description of the differences between a belt sander and a linisher. It is not obvious from looking at them. Robert Sorby is going to sell this new linisher. Apparently is will be out in 2008 and will cost close to $600 here in the Colonies. A number of them have been sent to the resellers for them to test and check out. He never demonstrated it. He just talked about it. Most of the response had to do with the cost. Again, thank you.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
To save others attempting to read my mind I'll answer that for you Derek. I do this woodworking malarkey for a living, often for seven days a week and frequently for ten to sixteen hours a day. Woodworking forums are a place to answer a few woodworking questions, get involved in some woodworking debate from time to time, and have some fun, such as interposing daft comments into serious threads.
Woodworking forums are a minor hobby for me. My real hobby is rugby, and I'm very serious about it. Perhaps I'm as serious about my hobby as you are about yours, which I suspect is probably woodworking. Slainte.
Richard
Perhaps you do not have the insight into yourself that you believe you do. We will leave the conclusions for others to make, eh? Woodworking is hobby not a profession for me, and perhaps for that reason I have less of a cynical and jaded reaction than you seem to have.
Rugby is your passion? Were you a player? I played a bit ... actually a lot, with moderate success in a tough arena. I also played top level tennis (born just too early otherwise I'd probably have been a pro tennis player rather than a shrink), top grade club squash, and until a few years ago I was racing windsurfers on the state and, occasionally, national circuit. At (now) 57 it is tough to keep up with the youngsters.
Always keen to hear about passion.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 10/16/2007 9:12 am ET by derekcohen
Edited 10/16/2007 9:13 am ET by derekcohen
My goodness boys, let's whip 'em out and see whose is bigger.
I'll go first if Derek promises not to put a camber on it.
Little dog's got a lotta bark.
Edited 10/16/2007 9:15 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
You're right for once Charlie. But I could not resist :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
Yeah Baby, you tell 'em.
Derek, my rugby career started out as average when I was about nine. After that it gradually went downhill until about a year ago it faded into broken winded ignominy at the age of fifty two.
I think I've retired as I haven't played any old farts rugby since April 2006, but there's always the possibility of a scintillating comeback--- perhaps as a corner flag or a tackle bag. I put my longevity down to my uselessness. Being a bad player from an early age meant I never experienced the pain of losing my skills, speed and ability as I aged. You don't really miss what you never had.
Even a few seasons in my thirties and early forties quite regularly playing out with the fairies behind the scrum didn't phase me. But I was happy to get back in with the rest of the donkeys, even if only on a token basis as the dancing, fleet footed, pretend back of the back row troglodyte society in my forties and fifties.
Still, my ability to drink all-comers under the table was always legendary, but even that skill seems to be leaving me. What remains are some wonderful memories, lifetime friends, and long term shoulder rubbing with some of the big names of the game from years past.
I don't miss many chances to watch the game and analyse what's going on. If nothing else it forces me to stop work every now and then. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Hi Richard
My early rugby memories were in Cape Town, where I grew up. My father was a fanatical spectator who, in his youth had been a founding member of the False Bay Rugby Club and played for Western Province (the leading state). I literally spent most Saturday afternoons with my dad and his cronies heckling the ref from the grandstand at Newlands Rugby Ground, which was (and likely still is) the most striking stadium setting around, sited as it is in the shadow of Table Mountain. We watched many, many provincial and test matches there. I played at school of course, and naturally graduated to False Bay Rugby Club rather than representing the University of Cape Town. Mostly I played full back and occasionally fly half. There is something rather special about the comaraderie of a rugby team that is not found elsewhere, especially not in tennis, squash and windsurfing, which are are largely individualistic sports.
Thanks for reminding me.
Regards from Perth
Derek
And you certainly have picked a good time to be an English rugby supporter, not talking to much about that code around these parts at the moment.
Rgds
John(disappointed All Black supporter)
The only trouble with that is my team play in a sort of bastardised blue nowadays and got knocked out in the quarter finals by the Pumas, ha, ha. They also got a bit of a reaming from the All Blacks in the pool games, and it was hard to tell which team was which on the pitch.
All credit to Engerland (sic) though, they've come on pretty strong on the blind side where no-one was really watching. It's been a funny tournament with some unexpected results. I expect plenty of up-the-jumper stuff at the weekend-- probably from both sides. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Oops, didn't mean to associate you with the unspeakable.
Cheers
John
Right then, who is it to be - England or South Africa?Philip Marcou
Sticking my neck out on the day of the game philip, I suspect the Springboks will manage to hide the ball up their jerseys a bit better than the English, and that when they do reveal the bloody thing and give it their backs they'll just have the edge.
On the other hand Wilkinson will cause them problems if he's got his kicking boots on, but Habana might do one or two of his weel kent try scoring interception jobbies when the English get desperate, reckless and ball slingy, if you see what I mean.
In the end I suppose I can't make a call, so it'll just have to wait until the game. It will require several pints of the dark brown frothing stuff for me to apply all my enormous intellectual powers to analyse the spectacle as the drama unfolds. And the more I engage myself with the deep and thoughtful analysis, the more I'll need the brown frothing stuff. I can see this being a ten pint marathon, maybe more, starting two or three hours before kick-off and continuing for two or three hours afterwards.
Deep thought needs huge amounts of beer over sustained periods to keep the brain cells working sharp-as-a-tack, ha, ha-- ha, ha, ha. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Hi Richard
Most of the Springbok team must be aware that this could be their last game in the green and gold. The South African president has decreed that future teams represent the racial subgroups in the country's population regardless of sporting merit (this is part of their "Affirmative Action"). This will either spur the team on to great heights, or distract them into mediocrity. I think the former. You may be crying into the dark brown.
It will be 2:00 a.m. in Perth when the game starts.
Regards from Perth
Derek
john,
Perfect.
I've been following this discussion hoping to learn something and all these silly interruptions add nothing to the learning process. At this point I'm a bit confused so will have to read a bit more.
I would like to see this come to fruition so we might get a chance to learn something though. Hope that Derek isn't totally discouraged. Actually I'm sure he isn't, being the grownup that he is.
Derek: I hope you don't mind but I used some of your ideas for the saddle & dovetail marking guages. I think I've come up with a combo one!
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
What is it about these little forays into 10th grade geometry that you find so fascinating?
Do us a favor, take up calculus.
Still love 'ya though.
----BullyBoy
(praying for an original thought today - having to do with furniture - one has to eat you know)
Edit:
I actually have camber on the brain and am trying to think about how to work it into a chair design - maybe put a heavy plane iron like camber on certain parts as a design feature. If I come up with something I'd like for you to look at the sketch. If it comes to fruition it WILL be called, simply, "Derek's Chair."
So, it was not all for naught. You have some hybrid jack plane thingy that apparently will work and maybe I come up with a chair design that will make me the next Hans Wegner.
I'm trying.
---BullyBoy
(thankful I get to sit with sketchpad in lap today and not stand in front of a bank of bench grinders with my hair on fire, laughing like a mad scientist with a big hunk of A2 in my hands)
Edited 10/16/2007 7:39 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
Oi Vey....
OK Steve... heads up... I might not have been around here for a while, but believe me, I know this path well enough to walk it blindfold. The origins of Derek's thread go back to when the new range of LV bevel ups were in pre-production (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm out by a month or two), and by and large, the summary of all his plane essays based on the series reads "these planes are the best thing since sliced bread, because"... followed by a list of all the improvements that Messers Lee and co have introduced and are rightly lauded for... they're pretty cool features...
He's ably made the point that bevel ups score over bevel down designs in their ability to change angle of incidence purely through changing the angle that secondary bevels are honed at, and he's equally right to say that said ability can save you a bob or two compared to bevel down designs... Now, over the years, while I've never been bowled over with Derek's particular presentation style, I've never said what he's saying is wrong, simply because he's right... up to a point...
Still with me??
That point as Larry has spelled out pretty conclusively very definitely stops as soon as you introduce camber; an argument that I believe Derek has ably demonstrated with his original post here... sure, it's possible to introduce the the required amount of camber, but when it involves so much palaver, jigs and power tools that your average professional isn't likely to have, it really isn't worth considering doing this when you can achieve the same effect in a matter of minutes using a bevel down plane with little more than a sharpening stone and some effort behind it... THAT's been my entire point... When an accomplished craftsman (David Charlesworth) can achieve the same end in a matter of seconds, Derek's argument that bevel ups reign supreme looks a bit shaky...
Derek being the character that he is, believes that when he's found something that others might benefit from, he's gonna spread the word over as many woodworking forums as he can... Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.... to a point...
That point starts when you look at the following that Derek's generated; different times, different forums, that following seemed like a cult at times, attempting to sweep all before it; it can be pretty persuasive... If, like myself, a curious rookie stumbled on any of the woodworking forums in search of answers, read the prevailing threads, it's fairly safe to assume that a few of them will have been persuaded by the argument and bought accordingly. My concern is that having followed what they're entitled to believe was best advise, they're left with the same difficulty if THEY want to camber their blades... what then...??
It is supremely arrogant to suggest that a newbie can't tell the difference between what Derek does and the rudiments of woodworking.
You figure...?? I know I couldn't when I first started; thanks to the regs here parting with their hard learned experience, the books listed elsewhere on site and a bunch of blonde questions, slowly but surely I got myself some education... Fortunately (in my case at least) that was in the days prior to Derek's evangelical zeal...
perhaps you should try to convince the FWW editors to eliminate the Readers Gallery? Talk about intimidating....
<chucklin...
aye... some of it can be... but still... there's a lot of inspiration in them pages too, not to mention that they're a constant reminder that I've still a hellova lot more to learn...
Derek pushes the envelope.
You really think so...?? No, I'm serious.. See... the lessons Derek's learned in this exercise are old news to the likes of Larry... I learned the same lesson more than 30 years ago in basic geometry, the best example of it for me was the use of sloping armour on the Russian T-34... tilt a plate to an angle of 60deg, you double it's effective thickness in a horizontal plain... It's not exactly news...
If you don't like what's on TV, then change the channel or start your own network or whatever. Just don't go around making pronouncements about what is or isn't good for us to watch.
Steve, in all honesty, what you choose to "watch" is entirely up to you as far as I'm concerned... whatever turns your crank is fine by me... but if I notice that what you're watching has a fundamental flaw in its argument... I'll say so... what you do with the info is again, entirely up to you...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
Yer stuck, mate - stuck with having to stick with yer past. Thangs change. You can too. (It's not a sin, although yeh heed may hurt).
BU planes - fine new things that Mr Lee investigated, found good and improved. Cambering BU planes: takes 3 times as long as a BD plane - so what, will we die of sharpening? Oh, oh! Where is my skinny Record bendy blade that I can sharpen in 30 seconds, once a minute!?"
That Derek - he thinks then he thinks some more. He likes to bounce his thinking off the likes of us (well, off thoughtful lads, not blinkered blokes - they stabs the thinking-ball with a knife and goes, "Yah boo"). Oh the terrible, terrible Derek; shall we burn him on a bonty for heresy and brain-use?
But there's more! That Derek, he 'speriments (this is a modern thang, have you heard of it)? This helps the thinking, you see, to stay connected with reality. Auld wifeys hates it, they do. "Ugh", they spit. "That thinkin' will make the divvil come and we already knows everything, yes we do, we do"!
***
Of course, we can all just ask Larry for The Answer; he is Gawd of The Planes (2 years behind). Why worry if he smites us for plane stupidity?
*****
You olden lads - you are a buncha silly old vicar-men, quoting the hymnal and tutting on and on. The boys in the choir are laughin' at ye.
Lataxe the irreligious.
Yer stuck, mate - stuck with having to stick with yer past. Thangs change. You can too. (It's not a sin, although yeh heed may hurt).
Och I've a sare heid at the best o times... but ummmm given that I've a fine stable (30+ last time I bothered to count) of bevel up AND down Lie Nielsens, exactly where would changing benefit me? I'm no brand prude neither... there's some L-V's and Clifton's in my kit too, along with a few dozen antique woodies that excel where routers fear to tread... ears burnin yet...??
Where traditional tool has a proven track record of being more than up to the job, I'll stick with it... where new demonstrates a quantifiable benefit, I'll roll with it.. the one golden rule I do my best to avoid is avoid the lemons at all costs...
Strange though it may seem Latie, I'm just an auld fart in training; my profile's maybe a wee bit outa date, but ye still give me a good 15 years t catch up on... ;P~~
It's been pointed out before, I'll do it again here.... it's NOT about the tools dude... the board doesn't know which side up yer bevel is, and I dare say it doesn't much care neither... but if yer angle o incidence isn't right in the ballpark, it'll let ya know soon enough... tearout happens...
Oh, oh! Where is my skinny Record bendy blade that I can sharpen in 30 seconds, once a minute!?"
<chucklin... if you wanna play with that mess, you go right ahead with my blessing, and I'll wish ya the very best with it... but personally I'll stick with nice thick A2 cryo hardened and focus on what I'm trying to do knowing the tools's more than capable of getting it done. Been there, tried that, experience happens...
He likes to bounce his thinking off the likes of us
Aye... that he does, and credit to him for doing it too... but... see... thinking isn't an exclusive quality... some of us are capable of thinking through a problem, seeing an possible option and dismissing it as "naaaaaa... life's too short... there's a better way" without having to go through the suck it n see bit first...
You olden lads - you are a buncha silly old vicar-men, quoting the hymnal and tutting on and on. The boys in the choir are laughin' at ye.
at the risk of thumbing my nose at yer messiah yadda yadda.... me thinks (in this particular instance) yer emperor has no clothes... Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Lataxe writes, ..."Oh, oh! Where is my skinny Record bendy blade that I can sharpen in 30 seconds, once a minute!?"..."
Let me get this straight. You're actually using the "steel" Record has been putting in planes for the last few decades as a point of comparison for tool steels? Wow, that's a very good example of why those with very limited experience should avoid dogmatic pronouncements. All I can say is that I certainly understand why Record is now owned by a company called "Rubbermaid."
Lataxe,Larry said to you:
"Wow, that's a very good example of why those with very limited experience should avoid dogmatic pronouncements."I strongly disagree with Larry. This place would be much less lively if people with limited experience avoided dogmatic pronouncements. MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
I think Larry missed my sark.
I gave the Records away, that I had, languishing in a dark cupboard for many a long year, seeing as how I came to hate them and their nasty bits and pieces. It really was a case of: plane for 5 minutes, take out "blade" and resharpen it; ad nauseum.
Of course, the lucky recipients of my "generosity" were not so lucky. I shoulda put them blue things in the crucible, as a lesson to the rest of the Blue Nasties. Even now, some poor soul is probably sharpening that blade AGAIN. (Surely it will soon be sharpened to nuthin).
Meanwhile I have acquired splendid plane technology from Mr Lee, Mr Lie-Nielsen and Mr Marcou. I am learning how to get the most out of it all with Mr Cohen and Mr Beach. Now and then a natterjack makes a relevant point, in between all their nattering and croaking; but usually it is hard to notice the meaningful utterances, in all the din and spit flying about.
However, that Mike apparently has a Huge Collection of planes and probably knows how to use them. Perhaps when he is finished poking Derek he will tell us about His Techniques? (Of course, they may be secret squirrel; or so peculiar one cannot type them down).
Lataxe, a bluddy student.
I gave the Records away, that I had, languishing in a dark cupboard for many a long year, seeing as how I came to hate them and their nasty bits and pieces. It really was a case of: plane for 5 minutes, take out "blade" and resharpen it; ad nauseum.
waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a minute... yer sayin that KNOWING the blade was as much use a sa fart in a space suit, you GAVE the tool away...without warning the poor sucker who accepted it...?? That's pretty calous..
Granted, I came to the same conclusions re my original Stanleys (read doorstops) but I'd the decency to re-arm them with half decent blades and chip breakers BEFORE I passed them on.... Rogue I might be, but I draw the line at bar-steward.. ;P~~ A guy's gotta have some scruples...
Of course, they may be secret squirrel; or so peculiar one cannot type them down
and I should trust you with my hard won experience..... becauseeeeeeeeee...??
;P~
no secret to it.... read... widely... over the years I've built up a small library who's publishing dates span well over 100 years... Digest as much info as you can, when in doubt, ASK... there's bound to be someone else around who's wither tried what you're attempting, or can see where you're trying to go and can advise accordingly... adapt what you've learned to your shop conditions, the tools you have and the stock you're working.buy the best tools that you can; you only wanna do this once so it makes sense to try to get it right first time... tune them properly, look after them wisely and they'll look after you; there's a ton of confidence to be gained through knowing the tool in your hands has already proven itself more than capable of doing the job... the only problem you'll have to resolve is figuring out how to harness that capability.choose a sharpening method that works for you, master it and keep your tools ready to use at all times... try to work mainly with stock that's best suited to the tools you have... you'll know when the time's right to try to broaden your horrizons..when all else fails, go back to the basics; sharp blade, tight mouth, steady hand and patience...set high expectations, aim to get as close to them as you can, but don't beat yourse;f up too much if it goes wrong... try to figure out why it went wrong and take the lessons onboard; you'll learn more from mistakes that way...
when addressing "experts", remember Ex is a has-been, spurts are drips under pressure...
there... if I give away any more there'll be nothing left to put in a book... if that's nae enough for ye, use the archives..
;P~~Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Hi Mike
A few responses ...
The origins of Derek's thread go back to when the new range of LV bevel ups were in pre-production
This is essentially correct. The BU planes were an exciting discovery at the time. What I most liked about them was their combination of performance and feel. These are great planes in the hand. They have a balance that I prefer over planes with higher centres of gravity. Of course, not everyone feels the same.
I would not go so far as to agree that I attempt to convince others on forums that "these planes are the best thing since sliced bread..", even though I certainly can list the many advantages they have. I do not ignore many other planes types available (of which I own and use). All planes have strengths and weaknesses. I think there is much that others have had a knee-jerk reaction to and misinterpreted.
That point as Larry has spelled out pretty conclusively very definitely stops as soon as you introduce camber; an argument that I believe Derek has ably demonstrated with his original post here... sure, it's possible to introduce the the required amount of camber, but when it involves so much palaver, jigs and power tools that your average professional isn't likely to have, it really isn't worth considering doing this when you can achieve the same effect in a matter of minutes using a bevel down plane with little more than a sharpening stone and some effort behind it... THAT's been my entire point...
Here is where we start to get into differences. You forget that I cambered three planes, not one, and it was only the jack that had a radical camber. The smoother and the jointer were easy-peasy as they required only a mild camber.
Let's start this discussion again. Larry points out that BU planes require an inordinate degree of camber so as to make them essentially useless tools. (I am exaggerating for effect - don't go literal on me). To some extent I accept this statement about the difficulty in cambering for a long time because I have tried to camber my blades with 50 degree primary bevels (since I use them on hard Aussie timber), and struggled. Then one day the light comes on and I realise that I have been doing it wrong - not that it can't be done. Just that it needs to be done differently! So I grind the blades with a 25 degree primary bevel ... and lo-and-behold it works! Cambering a BU blade is not a big deal.
It is acceptable to say that the use of microbevels and honing guides is not for everyone, but it is not acceptable to say that the method is rejected as representative of poor woodworking skill. Tell this to the millions who use honing guides on BD planes.
OK, so if you do not want to do the radical camber for the jack, the cambers on ALL the other uses - smoother, panel plane, trying plane, jointer ... whatever ... is really no more effort or difficulty than for a BD plane.
When an accomplished craftsman (David Charlesworth) can achieve the same end in a matter of seconds, Derek's argument that bevel ups reign supreme looks a bit shaky...
David Charlesworth DID NOT say this! Quite the opposite. He said that he did not have any problem cambering his BU planes. I will find the reference for you if you want.
That point starts when you look at the following that Derek's generated; different times, different forums, that following seemed like a cult at times, attempting to sweep all before it; it can be pretty persuasive...
Heh ... a cult figure? I like that ! No, seriously, that is not me. I admit that I contribute to several forums. They all have a different personality and different interests, and I like the stimulation. If you are aware that I write on different forums, then you must visit them as well :) Also, I do not simply write about BU planes. In fact, they form a minority of my writings - have a look on my web page at the articles I have published. There are 23 on tool making or restoration, and 19 reviews, of which 6 deal with bevel up planes. Look at the planes I use - and discuss publically - Stanley and LN BD, HNT Gordon and Mujingfang woodies, vintage infills, and both BU and BD planes I have built myself. If I am a cult figure it is not for BU planes - it is because I am prepared to give it a go and take others along with me with my articles. For some, the closest they will come to building a tool is to do so vicariously.
My web page:
http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/index.asp
the lessons Derek's learned in this exercise are old news to the likes of Larry...
Mike, this is where I have greatest issue. I am not disputing Larry's knowledge - I have a great deal of respect for Larry in this regard. One of these days I will buy and use one of his planes .. because I know it will be an amazing experience. I often quote his comments on other forums (that is an affirmation). What I do reject is that others are not permitted or are discouraged from questioning or discovering things for themselves. What those knowledgeable woodworkers, such as yourself, Larry and Charles should be doing is to encourage experimentation - because experience is the best teacher. The BU planes are a new world, with new rules and new methods. How many here can say that they are expert in this particular field?
The question that you should be asking me is whether I want to use my LA Jack with a radical camber. No one bothered to do so because they were more interested in criticising what I had done - rather than getting my opinion about the outcome of my experiment. So I will tell you!
I do not see myself using the LA Jack as a trying plane. I could do so, but I would rather use it as a panel plane (a long smoother) and on my shooting board (it is the best plane I have used there with the exception of my Stanley #51). The camber is not the issue. What I have demonstrated is that one can create a radical camber and, for those that have the need, it is really not a bigger deal than a #5 1/2 or #5 to maintain. I happen to have two #5 1/2, and I'd rather dedicate these to this type of work.
What have we learned about the camber issue?
Let us not forget the BU Smoother and the BU Jointer. The camber on these planes is not significantly different from that on a BD plane. So it comes down to the recommendation I made, this being that the best way I know at present to prepare a BU plane is to use a 25 degree primary bevel with a suitable secondary microbevel, and to create this on a honing guide (only because the included angle on a BU plane is pertinent).
If you do not like this method, then stick to BD planes. Personally, I prefer honing freehand on hollow grinds, created on a bench grinder, and stropping to maintain the edge. That is why it took me a long time to realise what to do. BU planes are not the Bees Knees for everyone. For many they are, especially newcomers to hand planes, partly because they are easy (easier?) to control and partly because they do offer a lot of bang for the buck. If you do not want to go this route, there are many others. Hey I love my HNT Gordon BD woodies too. One man's meat ...
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 10/17/2007 5:48 am ET by derekcohen
Edited 10/17/2007 5:53 am ET by derekcohen
Derek, the essential problem is that you are experimenting and solving problems the vast majority of us don't have (re-read Ray's sardonic posts). You also sometimes seem convinced that we actually are having problems but are too stupid to realize it. Then you go on to offer a fix for our problems we don't know we have presumably for that time when we finally reach a state of consciousness sufficient to realize how dumb we are and how smart you are. One can almost hear the drumroll in the background when you post.
You are fixated on having a plane set up for every single contingency that could ever possibly exist and this is not how most of us work or would ever choose to work, even given unlimited time and an unlimited budget.
A constant assertion is that you are doing the experimenting for us and to make everything work we only have to do "these things." The problem is that most of us don't want to do "these things." We don't want to buy a linisher and a SharpSmartyPants machine with all the attendant gewgaws (hat tip to Ray). We're into woodworking precisely to get away from all this strutting and fretting. You have a hard time internalizing this, but you need to. Most of us are willing to accept something less than perfection in our woodworking to get away from all the crud you seem to be delighted with. Trust me, it is a healthy psychological trade-off. You ought to try it. Dr. Macoute prescribes a six week hiatus from photographing plane shavings.
Clearly, you are a high energy individual - a doer, perfectionist, and an achiever who maximizes the hours in a day. I get tired just thinking about what one of your days must be like. I have a lot of respect for people like you but I have to tell you that it is tinged with a little bit of pity.
Edited 10/17/2007 11:21 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
Charles,
The essential problem is that you are not experimenting and solving the various problems the vast majority of us may have. You also sometimes seem convinced that we actually are not having problems but are too stupid to realize it. Then you go on, not to offer a fix for problems we know we have, presumably on the assumption that we will finally reach a state of consciousness sufficient to realize how dumb we are and how smart you are. One can actually hear the drumroll in the background when you post.
You are fixated on having a plane set up for only your own purposes and this is not necessarily how most of us work or would ever choose to work, given limited time and a limited budget.
A constant assertion is that we do not need the experimenting to make everything work; we only have to do "these things that Charles does." The problem is that most of us don't want to do "these things." We don't want to be limited to "Charles' Way". We're into woodworking precisely to get away from all this strutting and certainty.
You have a hard time internalizing this, but you need to. Most of us are not willing to accept something far from perfection in our woodworking; we want to get away from all the ancient and unthinking rigmarole you seem to be delighted with. Trust me, it is a healthy psychological trade-off. You ought to try it. Dr. Lataxe prescribes a six week hiatus from droning the same negative certitudes and pointless sniping at viewpoints other than your own.
I would take pity on you, but as Ayn mentioned, that is rather an insult to the one pitied.
Lataxe, a little echo.
Lataxe,
I also don't think that multiple monickers enhances Mr. WhomEverIWantToBeToday 's credibility either. I get a little suspect when I see the same person with many different IDs. What's up with that?
Bob, and that's my real name too.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 10/17/2007 1:41 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Derek... at the risk of sounding dismissive, I'm kinda hashed for time tonight, but I'll respond with as much time as I have... (says he tryin t keep SWMBO off my back too)... life happens, yea..?
right then....
What I do reject is that others are not permitted or are discouraged from questioning or discovering things for themselves.
I believe I answered that point in the previous post; time being short I'll decline to repeat myself other than to emphasize the point that when you take basic geometry into account, some experiments demonstrate (even through discussion) that there's better ways to do things, better being defined in this instance as achieving the same end in a fraction of the time, lending MORE time to doing what should be a core activity, i.e. working wood rather than metalbashing...
David Charlesworth DID NOT say this! Quite the opposite. He said that he did not have any problem cambering his BU planes. I will find the reference for you if you want.
I didn't say that he did... <shrugs.. kinda took it as a no brainer that having published both in written word and demonstrated on video that the point was beyond question... If you haven't already done so, I suggest you read David's books and get the DVD's... worth their weight in gold both for educational and inspirational purposes.. My point wasn't that cambering was difficult, but that it'd take significantly longer as there's a helllova lot more material to remove... the time being proportional to the degree of required camber and original thickness of the material. While I've the utmost respect for David's capabilities, I doubt if even a man of his caliber has found ways to bypass the known laws of physics.
What those knowledgeable woodworkers, such as yourself, Larry and Charles should be doing is to encourage experimentation - because experience is the best teacher.
<chucklin... n chokin...
Woahhhhh now... I dearly wish I was worthy of mention among such accomplished company, but alas, I'm merely a lowly mushroom doing the best I can to inch my way up the learning curve. However, even armed with the little experience I have, I'm able to recognize the pointlessness of reinventing the wheel simply because you can. Having come full circle, you've said yourself that your preference lays towards an alternative tool rather than use your aggressive camber; I canna help wondering what the point of the whole exercise was, given that the conclusions you've reached are well documented and taught at a basic level in school...
I do my best to follow life's basic rules... the lemon avoidance I've already mentioned... another is KISS... (KEEP IT SIMPLE, stupid..!!) and, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Evolution happens...
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
"Any rookie or newbie trying to make sense of this would be slashing their wrists by now in despair..."
Well, hardly Mike--- not unless they perhaps follow Derek's directions for getting a sharp iron they won't.
They'd only have a blunt piece of metal with which to bruise the skin, ha, ha--- ha, ha, ha.
I think I need a drink already, and it's only breakfast time. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
LOL...
you hinna changed a bit... ;)
good t see ye again ya auld fart...
btw, ye reckon the Springbocks are gonna take em...??Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
If I were new to the craft, I would have a real sense of hopelessness when reading a lot of your threads. I would have real doubt as to whether or not I could get a few edge tools ready for work, much less take on projects requiring really serious woodworking skills."I do that.. I never think I'm the lowest rat in the feeding chain Unless the BIG RAT has somethin' usefull to say! OR bigger teeth!
Derek,You've missed my points completely.Phil Lowe's plane is bedded at 45º. His 1/16" of camber allows for quickly leveling or flattening stock when preparing it for use. The traditional term for preparing stock was "thicknessing." Too much reveal of the iron when looking across the sole is bad. A traditionally prepared scrub plane has too much camber and too narrow an iron to effectively control the amount of stock being removed. A scrub plane cuts so deeply when taking a full-width shaving it isn't of use when trying to remove enough but not too much as one would when thicknessing stock. Lowe's jack/fore plane is intended to remove stock quickly but to remain in control of final thickness. The exact amount of camber would, of course, depend on personal preference and the type of wood being worked. To get the stock removal capability and control Phil Lowe is getting with his jack plane you'd need three times as much camber with a bevel up plane. See the illustration I posted earlier. You need 3/16" of camber on that iron to match Lowe's, Derek. Actually more if you want to match his shaving width but we won't worry about that.Frankly, I'm giving up trying to teach you how to grind. It's of no consequence to me how badly you burn your irons or how slow you can make the process. Maybe someday you'll be ready to trust yourself or develop some important but basic hand tool skills; until then, have yourself a real good time.
but I had actually reground a blade with a straight 50 degree primary bevel, taking this to a cambered 25 degree primary bevel.
Derek.. bear with me now.. today's been rougher than most, but even so... I've read that paragraph 5 times over and I still canna figure out why in gawds name you're tryin to create a bevel up heavily cambered cabinet scraper... what gives..??
<soooooooooo lost.... but rolling with it...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Derek-Taun Ton Macoute seems to be a play on the name of the sponsor of this forum--Taunton. Derived, no doubt, from the Haitian Ton Ton Macoute whom you reference. If I am guessing correctly, it is the only intentional humor by Charles that I've seen.I count eight noms de woodworking that Charles has used. Mostly variations on Charles Stanford (CStan,Charles, Stanford, and the like), plus Boss Crunk and Taun Ton and probably others as well.Whatever name he uses, there's a certain sameness to the message and style of all but a few of his posts.Don Brown
Derek's idea for using a pattern camber when grinding is quite ingenious..
I think every book Sam Allen ever wrote shows him holding up a sheet metal template to an iron and using a scriber to mark the amount of camber to shoot for when grinding.
Just for the record, you know.
If you listen closely you will hear the distinct sound of the wheel being reinvented.
Edited 10/10/2007 1:42 pm ET by Marsupial
Hi Charles, I don't think that using a template to mark a blade is the same thing Derek's demonstrating here.just for the record and all.
Edited 10/10/2007 3:05 pm ET by raney
Talking of nuts Charles, do you know what has a hazel nut in every bite? Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Here's a clue ... the LA Jack is producing decent jack-type shavings.
they don't look like any "jack-type" shavings I've ever produced, but then, by the time I reach for the jack, I'm trying to flatten the board, not plough fancy furrows into it, the scrub plane has already taken care of that for me. Personally, I fail to see the point of taking a fairly wide blade that was capable of taking a full width shaving, and "improving" it to the point where taking anything more than half width results in premature knackeredness.. It's daft..!! It unnecessarily draws out the time you're spending on stock preparation.... much less flopping into the shop chair, reaching for yer O2 mask.... to what end..? Masochism..? It's like tryin t eat wi half yer teeth missin.... sheesh....
The whole point of bench planes is to produce flat, square stock to enable you to tackle the job at hand, which is usually producing furniture in one form or another. That's it... it's neither glamorous nor rewarding in its own right. It seems to me that your camber leaves a surface that's wholely unsuitable for either of the logical planes that would follow it; either back to the scrub to continue shaping / thicknessing, or onto a try plane to flatten / even the surface. Neither plane will perform as well as they should on a furrowed surface, so why create one in the first place?? If you're worried about tram lines (and why in gawds name would tram lines worry you at this stage) then simply clip the corners of the blade. If you must camber a blade, then save the effort for a smoothing plane.
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Hi Mike
You commented:
they don't look like any "jack-type" shavings I've ever produced, but then, by the time I reach for the jack, I'm trying to flatten the board, not plough fancy furrows into it, the scrub plane has already taken care of that for me.
Keep in mind that I wrote this article in response to statements by Larry Williams that BU planes cannot produce markedly cambered shavings. He threw down the gauntlet and I responded. Admittedly, I initially only demonstrated a shallow - but still strongly cambered - shaving (which was the goal). Later I completed the shavings to depth, produced them here, having first established the parameters, thus:
"What is expected for a fore plane? This is what Adam Cherubini had to say on the matter (quote comes from his blog: http://www.popularwoodworking.com/projectplans_display/?planid=14719 ) ...
My fore plane has a cambered blade which takes a thick, but narrow (1") shaving. It will remove rough saw marks quickly, but leaves shallow troughs in the face of the stock.
So I went into the workshop and took a couple more pictures with the aim of documenting shavings that would be in line with Adam's description. What I wound up with were shavings about 1 1/4" - 1 1/2" wide and 1/32" thick. These left a shallow trough on the work surface.
View Image
Mike you also noted, If you must camber a blade, then save the effort for a smoothing plane.
Yup, did that too .. look at the other pictures I posted - these were for the smoother and for the jointer. David Charlesworth argues strongly for a camber on these planes. He respondedto me on the UK forum, where I posted this article as well. There, he gave his support for these shavings.
Let me use this opportunity to summarise what this thread was all about.
Bevel up planes have been around for a long time. In recent years they have become available again because of renewed manufacture by Lie-Nielsen and Lee Valley. They have become popular because they offer a lot of bang for the buck. However, they have also come in for a great deal of criticism by some because of perceived limitations, such as difficulties creating a camber on blades. This was Larry's argument, and which he stated publically.
My argument is that these planes require a fresh way of looking at things. What is a limitation of use for one person is possibly a limitation of insight from my standpoint. In other words, let us first look at these planes from a fresh (and positive) perspective. There continues to be resistance from some because they are not comfortable accepting different methodologies. The detractors here have offered nothing positive to the thread. And this is so unnecessary - I have always worked on the premise that a forum is to share knowledge and for debate. Debate means offering an argument with evidence in support of a belief or contention. In this thread I have attempted to respond with both evidence and conclusion. Hopefully those that have a disagreement with the information I have presented will likewise do the same.
Regards from Perth
Derek
My argument is that these planes require a fresh way of looking at things. What is a limitation of use for one person is possibly a limitation of insight from my standpoint.
Bear in mind Derek that I've been AWOL for the bulk of the last year (though it seems I've picked up exactly where I left off). Last I heard (and you've been good enough to repeat) was that the argument for the bevel up]s was bang per buck, the draw back being the difficulty in reprofiling the blades. Now, it could be the tight a$$'d Scot in me, but it seems to me that if you're gonna argue an economic advantage, the cost of your linisher needs to be taken into consideration too; personally I wouldn't relish the prospect of having to profile a blade as thick as that to the degree that you've messed with it using merely a 250 grit stone... it would take days..!!
I know from experience that achieving the required effect with a bevel down needs no specialist metalbashing tools and takes but a minute or two with a conventional stone... Shades of throwing the baby out with the bath water...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
I wouldn't relish the prospect of having to profile a blade as thick as that to the degree that you've messed with it using merely a 250 grit stone... it would take days..!!
Mike
I agree. That would be masochism.
I would also argue that the LA Jack is obviously not for everyone. I am not attempting to sell this plane or any other BU plane. I am simply trying to demonstrate what needs to be done to overcome what were previously considered to be limitations. Those that are interested in doing so now know what is involved. Keep in mind that this is a one-off operation for a radical camber. The other cambers, such as for the smoother and the jointer I did in a couple of minutes on my waterstones. No drama there.
Those that are not interested in using these planes are free to skip this thread. There are many hand planes and many woodworkers. I happen to use (bevel down) woodies as much as I use bevel up planes. I also build planes, both BU and BD. The world is a big place.
The other point I am making is that cambering BU plane blades is best done with a 25 degree primary bevel. Then cambering a smoother or a jointer blade with a secondary bevel of 50 degrees - which would have been a difficult task if one was using a blade with a 50 degree primary bevel - is a relative doddle now.
Just trying to further our range of techniques.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I am simply trying to demonstrate what needs to be done to overcome what were previously considered to be limitations.
Personally, I'll leave the question of the success of your "demo" to those trying to make the judgement call re which style to buy; I made mine a while back, stuck with it and I've yet to have a single regret... But to my mind, I reckon you've merely demonstrated Larry's point that to force a BU into a heavy camber, you really need some pretty heavyweight machinery to deal with the grinding... That's a pretty serious chunk o change to tie up in a machine that's likely to be used... well... you tell me... how often..?? Used by how many planes..?? If the cost of the lanisher is to be spread between a low number of planes, surely any cost advantage that the BU's have goes out the window when you factor for their share of the lanisher cost too...
Chuck Berry nails that one for me I'm afraid...
"too much monkey business for me to be involved in...."Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Laddae, it's a linisher, nae a lanisher. And a linisher is not a belt sander it is a belt grinder.
Both belt grinders and belt sanders are very useful to woodworkers, but a belt grinder is far more versatile when there is metal to be eaten.
Free hand accurate grinding of simple shapes like arcs, bevels etc are easy with a belt grinder.
Anyway, all that is beside the point-fit were you talking about?
(Ya gotta know a monkey when ya see one).Philip Marcou
Laddae, it's a linisher, nae a lanisher. And a linisher is not a belt sander it is a belt grinder.
Och... iceberg, Goldberg.... they're a' the same to me... ;P
but a belt grinder is far more versatile when there is metal to be eaten.
I thought ye were supposed t bash metal, nae eat the stuff... can ye nae take suppliments like the rest o us...? or eat more greens..??? Besides... I do more than enough metalbashin at work... t'hell wi takin on more o the stuff at home...
Free hand accurate grinding of simple shapes like arcs, bevels etc are easy with a belt grinder.
Och g'wa.. jobs like that are why Gawd invented apprentices... tel SWMBO that if it's in half decent condition by the time she's finished it (going through all the stone grades from 250 to 4000, of course) ye'll take her out to dinner.... n if she behaves ye just might take her back again.. see..?? sorted....
Ahem..
fit were you talking about?
damned if I can tell ye... I've been on drugs for the past couple o weeks... (back blew out again)...
Ya gotta know a monkey when ya see one
pot callin the kettle black..?? ;P~~
;)
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
you really need some pretty heavyweight machinery to deal with the grinding...
Oh Mike, you are such a kidder! :)
High speed bench grinder (I use one of these for hollow grinding BD plane blades and chisels), linisher (Larry uses one of those as well), Slow speed grinder, Tormek/Jet/Scheppach/Tritan, Veritas Mk 2/WorkSarp/LapSharp ......
No one uses these ...?
"too much monkey business...."
You said it!
Regards from Perth
Derek
No one uses these ...?
ummmmmmm.... I would imagine some do... but I'd guess that the few who'd own up to having most if not of em would be callin themselves professional metalbashers, nae part time muppets like the majority o us in here... Hells teeth... I mean even at work, with 2 fabrication shops (one for steel, the other for aluminium) we dinna have half the toys on yon list, and that's wi over a dozen full time metalbashers... AND a machine shop... why in gawds name do you need em ...?? Seems particularly over the top for just tool articles...
Personally I get by with 2 Veritas jigs... Mk1 makes cambering a doddle.. Mk2 for straight honing... half a dozen waterstones, the majority of which spend their time in their boxes on a shelf gatherin dust until i need to cut back the primaries... The only stone I keep near the bench is the 12,000 grit.. the Mk2's right along side it.
You said it!
nooooooo... I told ye... CHUCK said it... damn fine job he made of it too...
keep takin the pills Derek.. ;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
I'm not qualified (yet) to comment much on cambers, having eschewed them altogether until very recently. However, you mention:
"If you're worried about tram lines (and why in gawds name would tram lines worry you at this stage) then simply clip the corners of the blade. If you must camber a blade, then save the effort for a smoothing plane".
My experience jives with that, with a minor qualification.... Being persuaded by various post in Knots that a camber is sometimes functionally desirable, I decided to attempt them (but only on smoothing planes and only sufficient to avoid the tramlines, as you suggest).
I did so because my previous "clip the corners"attemps to avoid tramlines seemed only to produce tramlines without the sharp 90 degrees! They are harder to see and sand off - until the oil or other finish reveals the buggers! Doh!! So, until recently, I used straaight blades and just sanded any sharp tramlines away, as they are very shallow after smoothing, particularly if the smoothing ends with gossamer shavings.
Having now played with a Veritas MarkII jig and its barrel-shaped roller, I can make a slight camber easily and to a reasonably controlled degree. It has made smoothing near tramline-free and that final hand-sand may be redundant now, for me. I just need to find the optimum camber for my smoothing process - one which gives a near full-width ribbon but no lines at a thou or three depth.
The optimum camber will be different for the various blade angles I use (both in BU and BD planes). I find Derek's (and Mr Beach's) experiments very interesting, therefore. In trying to find optimum cambers from existing literture, I have just got confused by the many variable and often contradictory opinions given. (And they often are just opinions - no argument or data to explain the recommendation).
There may be a "clip the corners" techique that achieves the same effect (no blunt-corner tramlines) but this eejit could not manage it, I'm sorry to say. Perhaps there is an optimum technique and degree of roundover?
****
Meanwhile, Derek's investigations must proceed, I feel. He, like Mr Beach, reveals lots of the intricate mechanics. The conclusions to be drawn do (as he points out) reveal what is actually going on. This is preferable to being foisted with various stick-in-the-mire prejudices and old-wifey tales that the WW dogmatists insist on trotting out.
Derek experiments, which necessarily includes doing things outside the norm, the better to understand what the norm (read "practical procedures") may be. Technology and ideas progress; so does the range of "practical procedures" - unless one is stuck in the mindset of a journeyman carpenter of 1783, for whatever "reason". (Not meaning you here).
Lataxe, a Derek pupil
Edited 10/14/2007 7:14 am ET by Lataxe
Latte ye auld fart... foo ye diddlin..?? ;)
As I've said above, right tools for the job help greatly when doing stuff like this; camber isn't rocket science, believe me. I read DC's book... figured he was onto something worth persuing, bought the video, enjoyed the Eurika moment and merely duplicated David's technique.. Granted, it takes a wee while longer to camber A2 steel than O1, buttt.... patience and persistence coupled with a wee bit o "suck it n see"... DC's already broken the ice... all you need to do is follow in his wake so to speak... Guy's a genius so he is... ;)
As for the tram lines... another wee trick picked up from DC... test the blade first..
Set the plane up to best guess to get you in the ballpark, invert the plane before using a sacraficial sliver of wood to see exactly where the blade is cutting (he demonstrates this perfectly in one of the video's). Fine tune to suit before letting loose on the board... provided you've managed to avoid honing a bias into the blade, the sliver simply positions the centre of the cut relative to the centreline of the plane. The resultant shaving should be reasonably symetrical and leave the desired finish...
As for sanding afterwards.. Read Kernov... it'll save you a fortune in paper, trust me.. ;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
From the first sentence of the original post:
My friend Larry is adamant that bevel up planes cannot be cambered as easily as bevel down planes...
So, all of this has been little more than a pi$$ing contest between you and Larry Williams?
I will give you this, you By God walked up to the biggest kid on the block and gave him a good poke, didn't you?
I got into a tussle once with Larry about scrapers (I was wrong), but I have to tell you it never occurred to me to hit him where he lives (planemaking).
You 'da Man. And I bet he can't play rugby worth a damn.
Edited 10/16/2007 9:47 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
All,Great thread. Some quick thoughts:1) Derek: the idea of working at the edge of the envelope (or rather at the edge of the blade, since envelopes don't hold an edge) is a good thing to do. That's how new stuff gets developed. I have no fear that you will stop. I know that not everyone appreciates what you do. I was explaining it to my wife at dinner the other night, and her eyes seemed to glaze a little. Or possible it was just tears of delight.2) Ray: you were worried that your remarks might get someone upset. YOU ARE CORRECT. I HAVE BEEN FUMING SINCE I READ WHATEVER YOU SAID!!!!3) Toothless Macoute: Charles, calling yourself "Bullyboy" is like me calling myself "Super Woodworker". 4) Richard and Derek: I am just a hobbyist in woodworking and in liposuction. My real job is "extreme cage fighting". So far I have won twice, and the cage has won three times.5) it was interesting to read all of the declarations of love in this thread. I thought for a second that I had mistakenly wandered into a website that helps people find dates. Y'all keep up the great work. Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Sumtimes at dee en o a long day in da shop wit my beveel ups playan, I reallee needs me a canna ber too. T'aint no secret tho, I keeps me cans a ber in da ice box. If I'm fishin, I ties 'em to a rope and throws 'em in dee wada to keep 'em cool.
In the end I think Derek offers an interesting perspective in these tool reviews and technique demonstrations he does, and offers a conterpoint to my lackadaisical approach to the whole subject of tool sharpening and tool preparation for me to consider.
I've never really been much interested in the fine points of tool preparation and, as I've said before, I tend to be a sharp'n'go type. If the plane sole's not flat enough, flatten it, but do it quickly. I've no real interest in mirror bright plane soles taken down to 12,000 grit wet and dry paper for my own use. If it's shiney that's fine by me, but I also use planes that I've flattened with nothing finer than 60 grit or 80 grit paper-- coarse striations in the sole equal less friction in my mind, and a bit of candle wax slathered on doesn't hurt either, but maybe I'm all wrong on that front, but a rough but flat plane sole has never stopped me planing wood. And it's never taken me more than about half an hour to get a plane sole flat enough to work. Usually it takes ten to about twenty five minutes or so.
I've also never had much use for extreme and controlled iron sharpening. I freehand all sharpening processes even at the grindstone. I can't recall the last time I used a tool rest at the grindstone to get the correct grinding angle. I just guess it, and if I guess wrong at the beginning I make adjustments as I go. Hell, some of my plane irons and chisels have got five or six bevels on them-- they wouldn't win any photographic competitions for the exacteness of their grinding. None of those extra bevels matter in my opinion so long as the one at the very end comes to a fine edge with the so called flat face on the other side.
Curved blades? Just wobble the darned thing a bit on the grindstone 'til it looks about right. Do the same on the bench stone. Bevel off the corners a bit? Jack up each side of the blade as required.
Flat side of the plane iron not quite flat? Doesn't matter to me so long as the front edge of cap iron (chip breaker) beds tightly on that not quite flat surface. Ruler trick? Works a charm I know because I've seen how David Charlesworth sets it all up and does it. I don't use it. I guess I get the same effect by pressing a bit harder at the business end of the blade whilst easing up a bit at the back end when I'm at the stone.
But out there there is that wholely different approach that Derek takes and it works for him with what he's trying to do. His meticulousness and analytical approach to the subject suits a certain type of tool user I suppose, and is anathema to other types. I think it goes without saying that I'm probably one of the 'other types'. I suspect Charles Stanford or Taunton Macoute, who may, or may not be one and the same are 'other types' too.
Where am I going with all this? Well, I find Derek's approach interesting, but far more work than I'm interested in, and sometimes I can't resist a bit of joshing and rib digging in one of his threads. There are several forums where he posts the results of his work, and I intermittently lurk in a few more forums than I post in. I can't speak for posters that are hostile to what Derek does. They will have their own reasons.
So, I'd like Derek to keep on posting about what he's working on. He's unlikely to change my ways of tool preparation and sharpening, but by sometimes drawing fire upon himself he doesn't half cause some interesting technical discussions. To be honest, I've no idea how he keeps up corresponding in all the forums he posts his work in. Just thinking about his energy levels makes me wilt. This long post of mine will probably be the last thing I'll say in any forum for perhaps almost a week. It's taken up far too much of my time and I've got work I must do. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
ALL,This message is coming to you from the "Relevance Investigation Police" of Knots World. We do not want Knots to become trivialized, so we are making an all out effort to increase the relevance of messages posted here. This thread was selected for review by our newly formed contingent of Relevance Investigation Police, which we refer to as "R.I.P." Initial review of this thread indicates that the primary motive of the posters is to attempt to have this thread exceed 500 posts. Initially we felt that this would lower the relevance of the posts. However, we needed a metric against which to measure relevance. As a metric, we picked the "average relevance" of the posts in the Cafe. We have concluded that the average relevance of the posts in this thread to woodworking is twice that of threads in the Cafe. So please continue. We wanted you to know that you are being watched, and it is good to see that older people can still have fun.Enjoy.
Mel (friend of Jack, who is the head of the RIPers)Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Richard,
Way back when I began my journey down the slippery slope, if I had an iron as sharp as an axe I thought it was good. Flattening plane soles was a matter of setting it on the bench; if it sat flat we're good to go.
I struggled to get the plane to cut. It was a horror show to say the least.
Then I began following/lurking in here, especially the Hand Tools forum. I learned to flatten the sole & sides of a plane much the same as you describe, perhaps up to 120. Started flattening the backs of the irons, making the chipbreaker close up on it so shavings went oer the top stead of in between. Things got a lot better.
I then started reading more and more about the finer aspects of fettling, applying as I went along. Read all kinds of stuff about going up through the grits up to 20,000 and on and on and on and on. I thought that was crap and only for the anal retentive at heart.
About this time a friend gave me a #4 smoother. It was covered in rust, missing parts - in effect useless. Let's really get into this and see where it leads. So I went to extremes on this one, extremes in my sense of it anyway. Soaked it in vinegar to get the bulk of the rust off, flattened the sides and sole going from 80 all the way up to 4,000 - it GLOWED! Same with the irons. Trued the frog, the whole nine yards.
Went through all the steps to fettle the iron, chipbreaker etc. Honed the be jesus out of the blade till it was razor sharp and put on an ever so slight back bevel. Harnessed up the iron in the proper manner and headed for the test piece of flame birch.
YOUSER, YOUSER, YOUSER!
Man did that thing work great! I was in heaven. Right then and there I told myself that's the way all my planes are going to be. Just looking at that plane made me feel good. And yes, all my planes look that way and I'm damned glad they do; and furure acquisitions will be that way too.
Now, do they perform any better by going to all this trouble, probably not. Does it satisfy me - you darn tootin, and that's the point to all this drivel. Anyone should be able to do their thing beyond reproach of anyone else. If it works for you to hell with what anyone else thinks!
Jeeesh, I hope I'm not turning into one o them ol fart curmudgeons! I am getting on in years though..........
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 10/20/2007 9:04 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Hi Richard
I am writing now, not to disagree with anything you say, but to add a little. I am hoping that it will provide a little more perspective, which I did strive to offer earlier on.
Firstly, there is the world of research and then there is the world that is my workshop. These are not necessarily the same. Some of the time they are similar, but possibly more of the time they are closer to your set up.
When it comes to handplanes, I am torn between using BU and BD types. I enjoy the woodies I have, mostly HNT Gordon and Mugingfang, all bevel down planes. To prepare these, I grind a hollow bevel on a high speed grinder and then freehand them on waterstones. Nothing special. You will find this surprising perhaps, but I hate sharpening! One of the reasons I do research on it is because I am trying to find an economical method. KISS rules. I strop on leather as I work to maintain the edge. These BD planes work for me as I like their balance and the Gordon planes have the performance needed to work Australian timber. I can not get away with a half-hearted preparation.
There are a couple of reasons why I make the effort to get on top of BU planes. Firstly, these are exceptionally comfortable and balanced planes. They make it easy to use them well. Secondly, they are capable of being tuned to work at very high angles of attack, which is essential for most of our hardwoods. I think that a lot of hobbyists enjoy their ability to use different cutting angles.
But ... they need to be prepared differently to BU planes. They are not the plane for someone who is not prepared to do things in a slightly obsessional way. They are clearly not for you!! :)
I spent quite a while trying to treat the BU planes as I did the BD planes. I ground bevels on the bench grinder to 50 degrees and then tried to freehand them on waterstones. I could get sharp edges, but they were straight edge only. Eventually I had to accept that these planes need to be treated differently. Since the secondary bevel is so important (unlike BD planes, where the frog angle is all important), these planes need to be prepared with a honing guide. I really am quite lazy and this is not my style, but I have spend quite a bit of time working with various guides, especially the Veritas, and using one can be quick and painless. Still, I wish I didn't need to use one, and this is where the ambivalence lies. This thread was about coming to terms with this issue and accepting what needs to be done to use BU planes with camber.
Happliy, only a jack requires a radical camber. A smoother and jointer can be done as easily as a BD plane.... just as long as you prepare the primary bevel at 25 degrees.
So the BU planes are technical to prepare, and this will polarise users. Some will rail against this and see it as unnecessary fussiness. Others will just accept it as the entry fee to use a style of plane that is rewarding in use and performance.
I like both types of planes - there will always be pros and cons with each. It should not be about one or the other. One man's meat ....
Enjoy the rugby.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Hi Richard/Derek,I'd say that the better team won, but I was amazed that field position didn't turn into points for the English. A game without a try - rare in a final.The Springboks were actively trying to close down Johnny Wilkinson.Cheers,eddie
Twas a good effort all round. (Rugby world cup final)
Windsor Chairmaker eh! This explains a lot. This style of Chairmaking has very little to do with fine cabinetmaking at all, is extremely hard work, and more akin to boatbuilding.
This may explain our man's extreme grumpinessd and inability to acknowledge that other styles of planing and working wood have their place.
I think it is worth remembering the number and diversity of wood trades of the past and the many different ways that people choose to work with wood. The vast amount of abuse and wasted invective on these recent topics may be a byproduct of this underacknowledged fact.
The professional has to get his work done as quickly and efficiently as possible by whatever method works.
The amateur may have different objectives, and just enjoy the processes for what they are?
A little more understanding and tolerance of the working methods of others might reduce the current ridiculous levels of undignified and unhelpful argument.
David Charlesworth
Edited 10/21/2007 7:00 am ET by david charlesworth
Edited 10/24/2007 3:11 am ET by david charlesworth
Hi David,'twas indeed a good game. Not as one-sided as the playoff for third vs fourth, which was a great game of running rugby.
.
.
This forum is a fair bit more argumentative and counterproductive than others.
.
.
I've yet to fathom the reason why this is, but I don't poke my head in here anywhere as much as I used to. I don't have that much time spare anymore and here doesn't have the value and interest level of other internet forums (forae?). I suppose that everywhere, both in real-life and on the internet, has a different feeling and set of values/norms. This one's 'unique.'I wouldn't take the criticism to heart, but I can imagine that any spare time at your end would be in short supply and life's too short to deal with vitriol.Good to see you back.Cheers,eddie
(who played breakaway, second row and lock/No8 for a number of years (8?))
.
.
edit: If you feel the need to, put the heat on me and not David, folks -> this is just my honest impression of the place. Just reflect on how people carry on here and consider the impression it forms before you reply.
Edited 10/21/2007 5:47 am by eddiefromAustralia
Hi David
That expose of Windsor Chairmaking helps with a little perspective.
The game was very tight and had little drama, but it was absorbing. I watched until the end. Climbed into bed at 4:30 a.m! And Richard thinks he's a fanatic :) Perhaps I am just not too bright?
England came sooo close. A toe over the line at the critical moment. South Africa deserved to win. It may be the last time for them (with the nonsensical political-inspired decision to impose a racial make up on the SA teams in future - according to local Aussie TV). Hey, maybe this will turn the tide for the NZ and Aussie teams? We have been off the boil for the last couple of years.
Regards from Perth
Derek (ex-full back)
David C wrote:
"This may explain our man's extreme grumpiness"I thought that it might also be caused by his living in Memphis!
Andy,
"I thought that it might also be caused by his living in Memphis!"I kinda like Memphis. After all, the King lived there, although he may not have had any knowledge of where he actually was, later life. I'd hate to think that the problem you are referring to was caused by Memphis. Possibly they were putting too much flouride in the water.Or maybe the spaceship didn't actually land in New Mexico, but in Memphis.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel wrote:
"Possibly they were putting too much flouride in the water."Oh man, looks like Mel is trying to distract us from the real causes -- it must have been a NASA experiment gone amok, and Mel is not at liberty to disclose classified information!
Andy,
I was searching for a plausible answer for his behavior.
I can't come up with any.
So maybe it was the flouride. How have you been doing, Andy? We haven't talked in a while. What woodwork have you been doing. I put up a pair of "fraternal twin" cabinets in the Gallery a few weeks ago, and then a pair long knives that I made for chip carving. I also have been doing some chip carving. It has been a good year. I will retire from NASA at the end of the year. Been there since 1979. It has been a great ride. Lots of thrills that I never dreamed possible. I'll miss it but I am looking forward to some more time for woodwork. Let me know what you have been up to.
Enjoy,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled