Krenovian Damascas Plane

[MattRoberts]

I really hope that anyone who is relatively new to woodworking / blacksmithing / making doesn't read some of the comments in here. It would be a shame for their enthusiasm to be suppressed by fear of being mocked through elitist comments...

 

[Bodgers]

I really hope that anyone who is relatively new to woodworking / blacksmithing / making doesn't read some of the comments in here. It would be a shame for their enthusiasm to be suppressed by fear of being mocked through elitist comments...

Compare this thread to the comments on the YouTube video - quite a contrast!

I think the thing with Dustin Penner is that he's not pretending to be an expert plane maker, he's more of a amateur power tool woodworker, or even a more general 'maker'. For a self taught guy working out his garage he is doing some good stuff (safety issues aside).

He does say in the video description he did a lot of homework on plane design before making it, so I am not sure why he settled on a design with the angle it's at is basically a scraper...maybe he will clarify later...






Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[D_W]

I really hope that anyone who is relatively new to woodworking / blacksmithing / making doesn't read some of the comments in here. It would be a shame for their enthusiasm to be suppressed by fear of being mocked through elitist comments...

I hope that people don't confuse enthusiasm for throwing together junk for wasting an iron. But, the point of the "collab" isn't to make a good plane. It's to draw in subscribers, and I'm sure it will do that.

When I started woodworking, I was on the side of "some people think things need to be too perfect".

And then I had the same "enthusiasm" that you're talking about until George Wilson (politely) lined me out on something I'd made, and my entire perspective changed. I'd made a small pile (maybe not that small) of tools before that point, and while I had some fun doing it, it was like wandering through a dark room intentionally not turning the light on. None of them turned out to be worthwhile (Well, one did, but it could've been a lot better), just as the plane that was made in this video is destined to be wall art. With a little bit of up front planning (perhaps 5 or 10 hours) it could've been different, but who likes to think that hard? (I do, but most people don't).

To the extent someone wants to make art, that's fine - this plane served its purpose - it's intended to draw in subscribers without actually being burdened by knowing what you're doing or making something good or useful. The plane does look cool (I think). To the 99% of viewers who will never actually learn to make a decent plane or even use one, they can watch this and imagine that they could do the same thing, and such a trip of ignorance (the roy underhill effect is what I'd call it, I'll define below) is quite pleasant when it's not weighed down with reality. Much the same way millions of people tuned in to watch Norm Abrams (who is a masterful woodworker in terms of the type of work he did), imagining that they could do what he did in the time frame he did it because it looked easy.

A forum like this with knowledgeable participants is not going to have the same pie in the sky ignorant giddiness that a multi tens of thousands of views youtube video will have in the comment section. Most of us probably won't go there to suggest what could've been done to make a useful plane, because nobody there is going to care. It's on to the next video and the next collab so as not to lose the short attention span of the viewers who are more interested in a fast presentation of a topic, and move on to the next, please, before we talk about any details.

(Definition of the Roy Underhill Effect - that is, to draw in viewers who aren't making what you're making on your show, and never will, but present what you're doing in a way that convinces them that they could, anyway. It's enjoyable for the watcher because it's interesting and they're not burdened by the reality of the details. Roy shows someone how to carve with Mary May in 22 minutes, talks about a couple of aspects and nobody is threatened with the personal time investment that is involved in learning to do something well. That's what makes for an effective TV show - the pool of people who would like an entire season devoted to making a bureau - so that they actually have the information to try it - is not large enough to sustain anything.)

 

[knockknock]

...
(Definition of the Roy Underhill Effect - that is, to draw in viewers who aren't making what you're making on your show, and never will, but present what you're doing in a way that convinces them that they could, anyway. It's enjoyable for the watcher because it's interesting and they're not burdened by the reality of the details. Roy shows someone how to carve with Mary May in 22 minutes, talks about a couple of aspects and nobody is threatened with the personal time investment that is involved in learning to do something well. That's what makes for an effective TV show - the pool of people who would like an entire season devoted to making a bureau - so that they actually have the information to try it - is not large enough to sustain anything.)

While Roy Underhill's show is entertaining and appealing even if you aren't going to make what he shows. Many of his shows actually give the necessary steps to make what he is making. I made the grease box watching his show, I learned how to make frame and panels watching his show, and back in the late eighties I made a book stand (like the roubo bookstand) from a piece of 2x8 using my home repair tools. The catch is you have to record the show so you can pause and replay to get the information.

 

[D_W]

Yes, it's not total fluff, but the real secret to its success is that people who will never actually work wood will watch it. I never worked wood until I was in my mid 20s, but I'll bet I saw 100 hours of the woodwright shop as a kid. I think I've probably seen an hour of it since I started woodworking (it's hard to find on PBS here in the suburbs - they tend to focus on more local or hoity toity type stuff).

Norm's show also had that appeal, but it could sell tools, too. I remember watching that, too, as a kid.

 

[AndyT]

For anyone in the suburbs trying to watch The Woodwright's Shop, I recommend this link.
155 episodes available for streaming, pausing, rewinding. Many in HD if you sign in.
http://video.unctv.org/show/woodwrights-shop/

 

[Jacob]

You end up with an inferior plane that has the potential for creep and movement (but the inferiority isn't just due to glue).

Are you sure there aren't glues that don't creep?

I know that luthiers are pretty fussy about the issue, since instruments are under continual load from the strings, bowyers make laminated bows, and something like a structural glu-lam beam (clue is in the name) would be unusable if no-creep glues weren't available.

Obviously (and sadly) the commonest woodworker adhesive in modern times, PVA, does creep.

BugBear

I made a lute about 35 years ago. Entirely glued with PVA. Probably Evostik in a green bottle - I can't quite recall. It has been strung up all that time and so far shows absolutely no sign of creeping. It's an elaborate structure with a lot of glue joints.
It would be interesting if anybody could come up with actual examples of PVA "creep" i.e. failure of the glue itself under load, rather than being due to other factors such as temperature and humidity.

 

[D_W]

Creep and failure are two different things. Creep is pretty well documented. Failure of joints with all glues is pretty well documented. Relative repairability is pretty well documented. I'd expect that any outright joint failure in these glued together planes would occur after decades unless some oily exotic wood was used and the surfaces not prepared correctly.

 

[Jacob]

Whats the difference between creep and failure? Surely creep is failure?
Have PVA glue creep/failures been documented for decades? Looks like just a rumour from where I'm sitting!

 

[D_W]

Creep has been documented for a very long time. When you mention creep to most people, they would say you're referring to telegraphing joints or uneven joint lines due to movement, not due to a joint coming apart completely.

I guess it depends on what you call failure. I haven't ever heard anyone call joint creep failure unless the joint itself comes apart.

If you think creep is "rumour", you should probably inform Titebond.

http://www.titebond.com/Libraries/Liter ... .sflb.ashx

"Polyvinyl Acetate (PVA) Glue
Any glue consisting primarily of polyvinyl acetate polymer. This category
includes most traditional white glues and more advanced yellow aliphatic resin
glues. Although PVA glues can vary in strength, flexibility, water-resistance and
sandability, they offer good performance, cleanup with water and are non-toxic.
Because PVA glues tend to “creep”, or slowly stretch under long-term loads,
they are not recommended for structural applications."

It's probably more common to be able to catch a fingernail on a panel glue up or something similar. On planes like the ones shown here, you will be able to feel the line on an older one by running a fingernail across it. Whether or not they were just poorly lined up when new, I don't know.

All that said, as far as relevance for planes, if you make a plane that's glued together without the shortcomings that most glued planes have, it's still going to be a good plane. It'll probably take as much time as a mortised plane, though, unless you're going to make a lot of them (like terry gordon....crown planes in the US makes a lot of glued-together planes, too).

 

[Jacob]

I'd say musical instruments or Krenov planes are definitely not structural applications - least of all those little noddy planes.
I'll remain open minded about structural use i.e. architectural/engineering loaded beams, columns etc!

PS strewth I just looked at the OP's video (page 1). Some appallingly dangerous saw technique going on there! Very high risk of losing a finger.

krenovian car?

 

[Bodgers]

I'd say musical instruments or Krenov planes are definitely not structural applications - least of all those little noddy planes.
I'll remain open minded about structural use i.e. architectural/engineering loaded beams, columns etc!

PS strewth I just looked at the OP's video (page 1). Some appallingly dangerous saw technique going on there! Very high risk of losing a finger.

krenovian car?

Sawstop

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[patrickjchase]

Whats the difference between creep and failure? Surely creep is failure?
Have PVA glue creep/failures been documented for decades? Looks like just a rumour from where I'm sitting!

In the context of adhesives "creep" refers to plastic deformation of the glue, that happens without adhesion failure. In other words, the joint remains intact but the parts shift relative to one other by some amount.

"Failure" refers to loss of adhesion such that the parts entirely or partially separate.

 

[Jacob]

Well obviously, but for many purposes creep would amount to failure or creeping in that direction at least!
Some hair splitting going on here!

 

[D_W]

In one case, the joint fails. In the other, it doesn't. This is now hair splitting?

That's sort of like saying running a red light and being involved in a crash are the same. The potential is there for the former, but the peril is there in the latter. Are they the same?

 

[patrickjchase]

Well obviously, but for many purposes creep would amount to failure or creeping in that direction at least!
Some hair splitting going on here!

If you'd ever worked as an engineer or designer you would realize that there's no hair splitting at all. For some applications creep matters a lot. For others, not as much. Failure is always catastrophic.

The adhesive manufacturers therefore needed some way to separately describe and specify the two behaviors, so that the people using their products can make intelligent decisions. For reasons of long engineering tradition they've chosen "failure" and "creep". If they'd chosen "foobar" and "thingamawhatsit" it wouldn't change the situation one iota. In either instance the user/designer must learn some terminology before they can become competent. Deal with it.

 

[Jacob]

Has anybody ever experienced a "crept" joint? Having used PVA as woodworker/designer for 50 years or so I can say that I have not. But I haven't done much strictly "structural" (architectural: glued beams, columns etc). Neither has anybody else in this thread by the looks of it
Krenov's little noddy plane is a very unstructural object! Hardly more structural than a banana IMHO :lol:

PS come to think I have done some sizeable staircases with lashings of PVA; fairly structural but they haven't crept anywhere so far.

 

[Bodgers]

Has anybody ever experienced a "crept" joint? Having used PVA as woodworker/designer for 50 years or so I can say that I have not. But I haven't done much strictly "structural" (architectural: glued beams, columns etc). Neither has anybody else in this thread by the looks of it
Krenov's little noddy plane is a very unstructural object! Hardly more structural than a banana IMHO :lol:

PS come to think I have done some sizeable staircases with lashings of PVA; fairly structural but they haven't crept anywhere so far.

The only place I can think where I have seen it happen is on bent laminations. A while ago, as a sort of test for a chair back I plan to make, I laminated several thin strips of oak together in a basic form. I used PVA wood glue. After a day in the clamps, it didn't 100% stay in shape, I believe this is often referred to as creep. I hear cascamite is good for bent laminations, and I see it is often sub labelled as structural, so maybe that would be a good choice for a plane?



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[D_W]

Creep is a longer-period issue. It doesn't require structural load to occur, it can occur with dissimilar wood on each side of a glue joint. As the wood expands and contracts, the joint creeps. Presumably Titebond's structure specific statement is due to the fact that the glue will fail and potentially with catastrophic consequences.

I keep saying the same thing - it's the type of issue where you have a flush glue line and then at some point in the future, you can catch a fingernail on it. Not exactly catastrophic for planes, but if you're insistent on gluing planes together, why not use a glue that doesn't creep?

And more importantly than any of these questions, put a little bit of time in learning what makes a plane a good plane to use, so that you don't make bookshelf art.

If you're making something that's not structural and you don't care whether or not the joint moves a little bit, then it really doesn't matter. Especially if you need the cheapness and convenience of using PVA glues in a shop that's not that warm. You can't really work with animal glues in a 50 degree shop, but there are PVA products that will work fine at that.

 

[patrickjchase]

Creep is a longer-period issue.

This is in fact the technical distinction between "creep" and "yielding".

If applying a certain amount of load always causes something to deform regardless of duration then that's yielding.

If the load has to be held for a certain amount of time then that's creep.

There does need to be some load to drive creep, though it needn't be "structural". For example glass flows under its own weight over a long enough period of time, which is a form of creep.