Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1336977
This thing of the lateral adjustment lever moving in use has a higher risk of happening on a shooting board, where generally the work is always hitting the lowest side of the blade, and it's (hard) end grain. It's more than a nuisance if it happens, because of course it takes the blade, and thus the workpiece, out of square.
User avatar
By bp122
#1337002
Bod wrote:Your honing guide, Stanley or Eclipse?
My betting is on Stanley, very easy to get the blade out of square with those.
Eclipse type, difficult to correct any out of square, but not impossible. Just be aware where the pressure needs to be, to remove the high end.

Bod

It is the Eclipse knock-off from fleabay that I bought a few months ago. To be fair, it has been alright for most of my uses so far.

MikeG. wrote:This thing of the lateral adjustment lever moving in use has a higher risk of happening on a shooting board, where generally the work is always hitting the lowest side of the blade, and it's (hard) end grain. It's more than a nuisance if it happens, because of course it takes the blade, and thus the workpiece, out of square.

I don't have a shooting board yet. I tried to put together a temporary one but it didnt work. Need to commit to making a simple and good one.

Nigel Burden wrote:If the lever on the lever cap is difficult to snap down it could be that the cam on the lever is too square. This would lead you to slacken the screw which could cause blade movement. IIRC, Paul Sellers mentioned the lever cap cam being too square in one of his blogs.

The third blog down describes what I'm talking about.

https://paulsellers.com/?s=Lever+cap+%234+plane

Nigel.

I went home last night and took my No. 4 apart fully. Cleaned off the saw dust-oil mixture that was in some places. Cleaned and checked the frog - it is without any imperfections now and looked flat against a steel rule. Waxed the surfaces, oiled the screws and adjusters including the lever on the lever cap. Although it still doesn't snap down (I will look into the post you have shared) it works a lot better now.

Put it all back together and the plane feels better. Sharpened the blade freehand to even out the edge, now there is a 0.5mm camber on either side, still not as even as I'd like. Started doing the left and right side cut test on a 1/2" thick oak. The left side cuts smoother, right side cuts a bit rough - this may be due to my bad holding while sharpening freehand. But the blade didn't move back as it did before and pull it it of square, I felt.

Nigel Burden wrote:Just a thought. You say that your no6 doesn't do this. Is the tote on the no4 closer to the lateral adjustment lever than on the no6? Do you have large hands? If so, is it possible that your hand is inadvertently nudging the lateral lever affecting the adjustment?

Nigel.


I forgot to check how far the tote is from the lateral adjustment lever, but I do have below average sized hands and I usually am mindful of not touching the lever. But it may well be a possibility.

D_W wrote:
The iron and cap iron can never really be in a flat state - they're too thin and with too many forces involved if the cap iron is properly sprung. I think this troubles a lot of newbies, but this is a bias in favor of the plane user and maker. A good one.


Can you please explain it? I didn't follow this very well (homer)
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1337003
bp122 wrote:......... Cleaned and checked the frog....... Waxed the surfaces......


That's a mistake. Un-wax them. You've just lubricated a surface aiding the movement between it and the blade, when your problem is too much movement. The only wax you need on a plane is on the sole.
User avatar
By bp122
#1337005
MikeG. wrote:
bp122 wrote:......... Cleaned and checked the frog....... Waxed the surfaces......


That's a mistake. Un-wax them. You've just lubricated a surface aiding the movement between it and the blade, when your problem is too much movement. The only wax you need on a plane is on the sole.


Sorry, I meant to say I waxed the surfaces on the knobs and underside. I didn't wax the frog. I put a tiny amount on the blade surface to prevent corrosion. Is that still bad?
User avatar
By ED65
#1337007
BP, the way I read it you have two separate issues that aren't related, and so need to be addressed separately.

Out-of-square edges first, depending on how bad this is you may have no choice but to do this with an iron outside of a honing guide. Biasing pressure to one side will remove more material there (particularly using a guide with a narrow wheel, or when honing freehand) and this can be used to square up an edge, but this is generally something that is intended to be accomplished over the course of multiple honings, not all at once. If you want to do it in one go save yourself a bucket of time and effort and square the edge directly.

If you have much more than about 0.5mm, and even half a mil I think is pushing it, the best way to approach it is to take off all or most of the projecting corner on a grinder, or by holding the iron upright and rubbing the edge on a diamond plate or something else resistant to dishing. Then re-establish the bevel, followed by honing as normal. Doing it this way can literally be around 10 times faster; I've done timed comparisons, this isn't a guess.
User avatar
By ED65
#1337008
Now your plane losing lock on the irons, that is a problem you need to address now even if it's currently only showing up on oak. Any plane worth its salt should hold setting and if it's not adjustments need to be made until it will; unfortunately however it can be because there's a mechanical issue with the plane that you can't directly fix but instead will need to work around.

First thing I think of when this happens is whether the lever cap is not original to the plane. I've experienced this myself on planes that look to be all of a piece (generally on cheaper planes) but I've created the problem more than once when trying to assemble a Frankenplane/harlequin from disparate parts, so I'm on the lookout for mismatched parts being the cause now when I find it on a plane I'm inspecting.

Some lever caps just don't work right on some frogs. If this is the case with yours you may have no choice (for now) but to snap the lever cap down, then tighten the screw a 1/4 turn or so (however much is necessary) so that the iron assembly is held firmly enough. Remember this also means you have to loosen this screw every time the lever cap has to come off. This is a pain, but necessary because while you can lever the lever cap's lock up using the shaft of a screwdriver this is bad practice, it can eventually wear the the lock so that it won't work properly and in the worst case snap the top off.
By cookiemonster
#1337068
Sounds like you have been unlucky with the Axminster 3-in-1. I bought one of those as a factory second along with a block plane, and for the life of me I couldn't see what was wrong with either of them.

But the 3-in-1 iron has to be dead square. Do you know anyone (competent) with a grinding/sharpening wheel who could regrind it square for you? On an iron that thin it won't take more than a few minutes.
By D_W
#1337084
bp122 wrote:Can you please explain it? I didn't follow this very well (homer)


The iron and cap are in some kind of tension, either attached together (which is the case even for old wooden irons - the cap iron will flex the iron and bow the pair of them slightly).

On a stanley plane, you have another source of tension - the lever cap, putting tension on two ends of the iron in a line (at the business end) and at a point (at the top of the frog). All of these things bias an iron to favoring the contact points at the bottom and top of the frog.

In old wooden planes, the back of the iron is intentionally concave to allow the bed to be flat but have the iron bed where you want it to. A smart infill maker will bias the bed of a plane a little bit, too, so that any minor movement over time won't affect the iron bedding at the points where pressure need to be (at the edge of the bevel just above the mouth and further up somewhere that a cap or wedge are putting tension on an iron).

When you look at a stanley plane, it may look like the iron is flat on the frog and you can see no light, but it's not bedding the way you think it is. All of the pressure is on a couple of points somewhere - it's unrealistic to think that any iron like that, and a relatively imprecisely made frog, will have even engineering-quality bedding like a machine way or something like that. The design is smart so that the work doesn't have to be perfect. When people spent time lapping frog faces into a mirror, etc, they're wasting their time.

Lastly, when I was in my learning phase about how to make a good working plane (so that I wouldn't go to the trouble of making tools and then have objects that work less well than my purchased tools), I learned to bias things in my favor like this. It's the same thing as not sharpening a full long before with a fine abrasive - you chance not getting the parts that count right because you're wasting time elsewhere. I noticed the jeweled bed on veritas planes, and I asked Rob Lee how they don't get irons high centering on a machined area like that, even just a little due to variation or seasoning, and he confirmed what I suspected - that they bias the beds to be lower in the middle to make sure the iron beds properly for a long time.

Over the years, I have probably had 75 stanley type planes - they come and go, but I'm out of the habit of bringing them in at this point. I have had exactly two that didn't work properly due to machined bits. One had some kind of slag-like nib on the frog sticking up, and I filed it off. It was a pain to use, but someone else suffered through it for years. Not sure what it was, but it was cast iron (it wasn't glue, etc).

The second plane that had a problem from the factory was a later model english stanley where the adjuster pawl was much thicker than the slot in the cap iron was wide. That left the iron suspended on the adjuster pawl just above the frog of the plane. It still worked, but it didn't work that well in terms of setting and adjusting (as you might expect it may not).

Engineering flatness isn't something that really goes with frog faces and plane irons on stanley type planes - the iron itself will never be flat enough under the tension of the lever cap to warrant it.
User avatar
By bp122
#1337086
cookiemonster wrote:Sounds like you have been unlucky with the Axminster 3-in-1. I bought one of those as a factory second along with a block plane, and for the life of me I couldn't see what was wrong with either of them.

But the 3-in-1 iron has to be dead square. Do you know anyone (competent) with a grinding/sharpening wheel who could regrind it square for you? On an iron that thin it won't take more than a few minutes.


I had seen similar feedback, which is why I bought it.
Anyway, I don't know anyone near me who has a grinder and knows how to use it. But I got myself an old 150W 150mm grinder with the blue wheel on it - which I understand is quite coarse. I'll look into a good stone for establishing new bevels on plane irons and chisels and then practice getting a new edge on some of them and then work on the 3-in-1.
User avatar
By bp122
#1337098
D_W wrote:
bp122 wrote:Can you please explain it? I didn't follow this very well (homer)


The iron and cap are in some kind of tension, either attached together (which is the case even for old wooden irons - the cap iron will flex the iron and bow the pair of them slightly).

On a stanley plane, you have another source of tension - the lever cap, putting tension on two ends of the iron in a line (at the business end) and at a point (at the top of the frog). All of these things bias an iron to favoring the contact points at the bottom and top of the frog.

In old wooden planes, the back of the iron is intentionally concave to allow the bed to be flat but have the iron bed where you want it to. A smart infill maker will bias the bed of a plane a little bit, too, so that any minor movement over time won't affect the iron bedding at the points where pressure need to be (at the edge of the bevel just above the mouth and further up somewhere that a cap or wedge are putting tension on an iron).

When you look at a stanley plane, it may look like the iron is flat on the frog and you can see no light, but it's not bedding the way you think it is. All of the pressure is on a couple of points somewhere - it's unrealistic to think that any iron like that, and a relatively imprecisely made frog, will have even engineering-quality bedding like a machine way or something like that. The design is smart so that the work doesn't have to be perfect. When people spent time lapping frog faces into a mirror, etc, they're wasting their time.

Lastly, when I was in my learning phase about how to make a good working plane (so that I wouldn't go to the trouble of making tools and then have objects that work less well than my purchased tools), I learned to bias things in my favor like this. It's the same thing as not sharpening a full long before with a fine abrasive - you chance not getting the parts that count right because you're wasting time elsewhere. I noticed the jeweled bed on veritas planes, and I asked Rob Lee how they don't get irons high centering on a machined area like that, even just a little due to variation or seasoning, and he confirmed what I suspected - that they bias the beds to be lower in the middle to make sure the iron beds properly for a long time.

Over the years, I have probably had 75 stanley type planes - they come and go, but I'm out of the habit of bringing them in at this point. I have had exactly two that didn't work properly due to machined bits. One had some kind of slag-like nib on the frog sticking up, and I filed it off. It was a pain to use, but someone else suffered through it for years. Not sure what it was, but it was cast iron (it wasn't glue, etc).

The second plane that had a problem from the factory was a later model english stanley where the adjuster pawl was much thicker than the slot in the cap iron was wide. That left the iron suspended on the adjuster pawl just above the frog of the plane. It still worked, but it didn't work that well in terms of setting and adjusting (as you might expect it may not).

Engineering flatness isn't something that really goes with frog faces and plane irons on stanley type planes - the iron itself will never be flat enough under the tension of the lever cap to warrant it.


Thank you for the in-depth explanation. I knew the blade would be in tension, but didn't know until just now that it doesn't rest on the frog flat.

I do have a question about this - if you are looking at a plane front on, there are three important horizontal lines:
1. Cutting edge of the blade
2. Edge of the cap iron meeting the blade just above the cutting edge (As I understand it in broad terms, smaller the gap - finer the cut)
3. The line of the bottom end of the lever cap.

Now, it may be obvious that the #1 (blade edge) should be truly square to the plane body (lengthwise, ideally) and #2 should also be true to get an even shaving thickness across the width of the blade.
What about #3? Sometimes I have noticed, my lever cap sits a bit wonky and the bottom edge of it is at a slight angle to #2. I have only noticed it after planing for a while.
Since this is a line contact between the blade-cap iron combo and the lever cap, this line being not parallel has adverse effect on the tension, position and performance of the blade?

Just to clarify - this doesn't really bother me or keep me up at night, but just a wonderment.
By D_W
#1337146
None of those things are critical that I'm aware of aside from #2 in your list and some decent bedding at the bottom of the frog (which will probably occur by design). if the lever cap is off kilter from the cap iron a little bit, i doubt it matters (but you set that and it rotates, so it can't be that bad, or you can readjust).

In terms of what's really critical, an iron doesn't have to have parallel sides (some of them don't), and the sides of the iron and the plane don't need to be ideal to the sole. The sole needs to be functionally flat, the cap iron needs to be able to be adjusted parallel to the width of the sole and the iron itself needs to be ground and honed to be mated to the cap iron. if the cap is a tiny bit out of square but the plane adjusts fine, then grind the iron so that it matches the cap, not squareness. It's easier. I know that's not how most people visualize things, but if you learn to make small adjustments to the iron to keep it mated to the cap, the plane will always function well, and when you come across a plane with tapering sides on the iron (which is beneficial in a wedged plane), you won't be searching for a squareness that really isn't there because the sides of the iron aren't parallel to each other.

This is also preferable to adjusting the cap iron to make it perfectly square. Cap irons should only be adjusted if no other accommodations can be made (some of the older woodies are so poorly made that such a thing is necessary).
User avatar
By Bm101
#1337168
I have a sorby proedge I bought on here. I also have abiding memories of honing guides and fettling planes and wet and dry on plate glass with rough as f### irons and planes I was trying to get true as a beginner while trying to take on much well intentioned advice. And I'm still a beginner. But I have a sorby and I'm glad I do.
Send me your irons for your (3?) planes and I'll grind them all at 90 degrees with whatever bevel you want as long as its a preset sorby one. 25 degrees should be grand.
Pm with your address etc.
Cheers
Chris.
User avatar
By ED65
#1337308
bp122 wrote:What about #3? Sometimes I have noticed, my lever cap sits a bit wonky and the bottom edge of it is at a slight angle to #2. I have only noticed it after planing for a while.

If it's slipping in use you need to tighten the screw further. IMO it's worth having a dedicated screwdriver for this purpose, one that spans most or all of the screw slots on cap-iron screws. You can make an ad hoc thing from a large washer if need be!

Unless you're doing finish planing the cap iron's leading edge does not need to be perfectly parallel with the cutting edge. It's good if it is, but not absolutely vital so don't sweat it too much if you're not using your no. 4 for finishing planing. If you're using your 6 as a fore plane it's even less vital there, if you're using it as a jointer then yes it is desirable for them to be parallel (and ideally square too).

In a rare case of disagreeing with D_W I think a cap iron's edge should be made square to its sides (assuming it isn't already, generally they are or pretty darn close unless previously messed with, damaged by a drop or worn through heavy use). Then the cutting iron should be adjusted to match and afterwards just kept that way.

I find this idea much preferable to maintaining an iron in an out-of-square condition permanently, something that would go double for someone using a honing guide.
User avatar
By ED65
#1337310
bp122 wrote:But I got myself an old 150W 150mm grinder with the blue wheel on it - which I understand is quite coarse.

Not ideal but may still be usable. Better types of stones keep the steel cooler (not cool, they just don't get it as hot as fast) but if you don't grind right to an edge, which you're not supposed to anyway when grinding conventionally, overheating is not too likely.

And of course you can dunk the steel into cold water periodically to cool it as and when needed. The lower power of the grinder may be working in your favour here since lower speed aids in not overheating too.
By Nigel Burden
#1337316
I was going to mention not getting the iron hot.

My cheap old B&Q grinder will blue an iron in no time. I keep a jar of water handy, and to avoid overheating I make one pass, dunk, one pass, dunk, this avoids overheating. I find that the belt sander, which has adjustable speeds does the job ok on the rare occasion that I need anything other than just honing the iron free hand.

Nigel.