bugbear
Established Member
hockeydad":3t1icdn1 said:
Cool - I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the (potential) problem.
BugBear
Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding
- Thread starter Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Cool - I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the (potential) problem.
BugBear
engineer one
Established Member
thought i better redeem my knowledge base.
you would not case harden a cutting tool since the case hardening would be removed with the sharpening process. in principle, you case harden things like shafts which need to run in bearings, but need to retain the
basic flexibility of the steel.
for tool steel for use in a blade i would expect that it is hardened, maybe in oil, or a cyrogenic chamber, then the temper drawn, or stress relieved
to basically align the molecules so that they are rather like the grain of wood that way they keep and take an edge.
my history lessons tell me that one of the reasons that the japanese used two metals was that the "tool" steel was less easily available than the mild steel. it was only later that they sought to justify the practice by claiming that it made it easier to sharpen the actual edge.
one of the skills we lost in the west was the making of "damascene" blades where layers of steel were hammered together and then bent over, and hammered again until they seemed all to become one. the feeling was
that iron and steel developed after the industrial revolution was adequate without the costly process of mixing them. however what many people do not know is that steel was available for a long time before, but not in large
quantities. it was the ability to produce large quantities that was the great leap forward.
but all this does not answer the original question why odd shavings?
the only real answer can be some problem with the frog seating if the body is flat and at right angles to the mouth.
its nice to know that just occassionally LN can make a mistake :shock: :shock:
paul :wink:
you would not case harden a cutting tool since the case hardening would be removed with the sharpening process. in principle, you case harden things like shafts which need to run in bearings, but need to retain the
basic flexibility of the steel.
for tool steel for use in a blade i would expect that it is hardened, maybe in oil, or a cyrogenic chamber, then the temper drawn, or stress relieved
to basically align the molecules so that they are rather like the grain of wood that way they keep and take an edge.
my history lessons tell me that one of the reasons that the japanese used two metals was that the "tool" steel was less easily available than the mild steel. it was only later that they sought to justify the practice by claiming that it made it easier to sharpen the actual edge.
one of the skills we lost in the west was the making of "damascene" blades where layers of steel were hammered together and then bent over, and hammered again until they seemed all to become one. the feeling was
that iron and steel developed after the industrial revolution was adequate without the costly process of mixing them. however what many people do not know is that steel was available for a long time before, but not in large
quantities. it was the ability to produce large quantities that was the great leap forward.
but all this does not answer the original question why odd shavings?
the only real answer can be some problem with the frog seating if the body is flat and at right angles to the mouth.
its nice to know that just occassionally LN can make a mistake :shock: :shock:
paul :wink:
Wiley Horne
Established Member
The Clifton blade worked fine in the LN 4.5 body--pictures were shown to document. Conclusion: LN body is good.
LN blade is claimed to be soft in the middle, but not on the edges.
Differential heat treatment is a near-impossibility.
Blade temper drawn by machine grinding in Australia remains a possibility.
The facts presented so far have brought us very close to the need for the Lie Nielsen company, and Thomas Lie Nielsen, to be given an apology.
Wiley
LN blade is claimed to be soft in the middle, but not on the edges.
Differential heat treatment is a near-impossibility.
Blade temper drawn by machine grinding in Australia remains a possibility.
The facts presented so far have brought us very close to the need for the Lie Nielsen company, and Thomas Lie Nielsen, to be given an apology.
Wiley
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
Wiley
I think that you are over-reacting.
Consider the following:
I was loaned a plane that had not been used and came with the original factory grind, as I have been informed by the owner. It was purchased from the factory in 2000, which indicates that the iron was the softer HCS, not A2.
I went to a lot of trouble to determine that the plane, itself, was in perfect condition and an excellent state of tune. It did not require anything from me to get it to this state.
When it became apparent that the iron was hollowed, I accepted part of the blame owing to my poor technique (when honing a straight bevel with a cambered wheel). The bevel was re-honed and checked for straightness, but it was evident that the iron was faulty since the edge only lasted a dozen strokes. On inspection, a slight hollow had returned, indicating greater wear in this area, plus the side edges of the iron remained sharp while the centre section was blunt.
Now, unless the owner comes forward to state that he had used a high speed grinder to shape the bevel, thereby over-heating it and destroying the temper, I must conclude that it came this way from the factory.
I did not come to these conclusions impulsively. The reason I posted here was that I was confused and needing an infusion of ideas to sort the plane out. In the end I shared my conclusion, which may be wrong, but so far no one has stated why or how my deductions are faulty. All I hear is "it is impossible". That is not a good enough argument.
Last point: I have a large number of LN irons, since I have a large number of LN planes. Never for one moment would I consider a 2000 iron to be representative of LN quality. I cannot imagine that any one else would do so either. Not for one moment have I intended to imply any criticism of LN.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I think that you are over-reacting.
Consider the following:
I was loaned a plane that had not been used and came with the original factory grind, as I have been informed by the owner. It was purchased from the factory in 2000, which indicates that the iron was the softer HCS, not A2.
I went to a lot of trouble to determine that the plane, itself, was in perfect condition and an excellent state of tune. It did not require anything from me to get it to this state.
When it became apparent that the iron was hollowed, I accepted part of the blame owing to my poor technique (when honing a straight bevel with a cambered wheel). The bevel was re-honed and checked for straightness, but it was evident that the iron was faulty since the edge only lasted a dozen strokes. On inspection, a slight hollow had returned, indicating greater wear in this area, plus the side edges of the iron remained sharp while the centre section was blunt.
Now, unless the owner comes forward to state that he had used a high speed grinder to shape the bevel, thereby over-heating it and destroying the temper, I must conclude that it came this way from the factory.
I did not come to these conclusions impulsively. The reason I posted here was that I was confused and needing an infusion of ideas to sort the plane out. In the end I shared my conclusion, which may be wrong, but so far no one has stated why or how my deductions are faulty. All I hear is "it is impossible". That is not a good enough argument.
Last point: I have a large number of LN irons, since I have a large number of LN planes. Never for one moment would I consider a 2000 iron to be representative of LN quality. I cannot imagine that any one else would do so either. Not for one moment have I intended to imply any criticism of LN.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Correct Derek - this is a forum where people very rarely get 'over-excited', and opinions and discussion are almost always aimed at helping one another understand issues, not point fingers - unless it is thoroughly deserved!
Let us know if you identify the cause - it's an interesting puzzle, not an L-N trashing exercise...
Let us know if you identify the cause - it's an interesting puzzle, not an L-N trashing exercise...
Alf
Established Member
But then again "stuff happens". As another toolmaker well known to this august group has remarked in the past; if there's going to be one that slips through it'll inevitably end up being the one the reviewer gets, usually the overseas one at that. And by gum, Murphy's done some fancy footwork to set this one up 6 years in advance! #-oWiley Horne":3i80kob4 said:
Cheers, Alf
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
A further thought:
Are irons prepared by grinding the bevel, then heat treating? Or, heat treating then grinding (alternatively, grinding, heat-treating, then grinding once again)?
If the former, then I can understand why some reject the notion of "differential heat treatment". However, if the latter, then I would have thought it possible to have different hardnesses in one strip of steel if grinding is applied less than juditiously.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Are irons prepared by grinding the bevel, then heat treating? Or, heat treating then grinding (alternatively, grinding, heat-treating, then grinding once again)?
If the former, then I can understand why some reject the notion of "differential heat treatment". However, if the latter, then I would have thought it possible to have different hardnesses in one strip of steel if grinding is applied less than juditiously.
Regards from Perth
Derek
hockeydad
Member
Alf as promised, I pulled the blade on the LN 4 1/2, reground the base bevel, touched up the back and rehoned it using the MK 2, (SS 220 thru 2000) to make sure it was square. I then touched up the the Stanleys, 1000 - 2000, took the LV Jack out unretouched, pulled out a piece of curly maple, curly cherry and white oak and went at it. Sorry Derek, I didn't have any "real wood" from down under to make it a real test. However, I copied your procedure and planed with and against the grains. The results... The LV Jack was the hands down winner in all ways, with the grain, against the grain and even across the grain. The LN performed better than it had earlier but only slightly better than the Stanleys. It was significantly better going against the grain of the "curlys" than the 2 Stanleys leaving a finish that would require a minimum of scraping. The Stanleys each had a minor tearout on the maple and cherry boards. Let me emphasize, there was nothing scientific about this procedure!! I was simply testing my own feeling that the LN was not performing to a level that I expected and I was trying to determine if it was it my own poor preparation or the fault of some component of the plane.
So what do I conclude? I don't know if there was/is a problem the LN 4 1/2. After regrinding and honing, it performed better. If I did not have the LV Jack to compare it against I might have been happy, maybe tickled pink with the results. Therefore, I do not feel justified in sending it back and asking for either another plane or a refund. I'm begining to think that my expectation level was out of whack. (Not unlike my early experiences with the opposite sex.....maybe even my curr...nah...don't go there George) I am sure though that a LV BUS is in my future, even if I have to sell off some of my purchases of the '80's.
My last comments...In answer to a question posed earlier in this thread, I examine the results of my sharpening visually with no aids other than my reading glasses. I reduce the number of hairs on my arm and that I hit a couple of licks on a board of my choice, unless I'm involved in a project and then that becomes my board of choice.
Sorry to be so longwinded. I really feel as though I had nothing to say...
George S
So what do I conclude? I don't know if there was/is a problem the LN 4 1/2. After regrinding and honing, it performed better. If I did not have the LV Jack to compare it against I might have been happy, maybe tickled pink with the results. Therefore, I do not feel justified in sending it back and asking for either another plane or a refund. I'm begining to think that my expectation level was out of whack. (Not unlike my early experiences with the opposite sex.....maybe even my curr...nah...don't go there George) I am sure though that a LV BUS is in my future, even if I have to sell off some of my purchases of the '80's.
My last comments...In answer to a question posed earlier in this thread, I examine the results of my sharpening visually with no aids other than my reading glasses. I reduce the number of hairs on my arm and that I hit a couple of licks on a board of my choice, unless I'm involved in a project and then that becomes my board of choice.
Sorry to be so longwinded. I really feel as though I had nothing to say...
George S
George... I honestly can't tell what the prob might be with your L-N without either a bunch more info or a looksee in person.. bit I do know that there's more potential "under the hood" than you're seeing at the moment.
When properly tuned it should be able to leave a finer finish working against the grain than a Stanley (s/w stock blade) will when working with the grain... Tear out simply doesn't happen unless the throat's too open, chip breaker's too far back, cut's too aggressive and the blade's tired..
If a re-tune doesn't produce a marked difference, I'd give L-N a call to arrange for them to check it out... Straight outa the box it should be working far better than it sounds like it is...
When properly tuned it should be able to leave a finer finish working against the grain than a Stanley (s/w stock blade) will when working with the grain... Tear out simply doesn't happen unless the throat's too open, chip breaker's too far back, cut's too aggressive and the blade's tired..
If a re-tune doesn't produce a marked difference, I'd give L-N a call to arrange for them to check it out... Straight outa the box it should be working far better than it sounds like it is...
hockeydad
Member
Mike,
I hate to keep boring people with this thread but a couple of things...I'd love to have you look at it in person. TLOML and I were in Ireland ( the home of her fathers ancestors) last fall and hoped to do Scotland (home of her mothers tree) this year. But..can't get my youngest off the ice, lacrosse fields, etc., so looks like we won't make it. But if I do, I'll make sure I carry the, "ornery one", with me...the LN not TLOML.
The other point, one of the Stanleys has a Hock replacement blade and the other a like new type "V" blade. I don't believe it had ever been sharpened before I got it, if that means anything. Gloat..picked them up in the mid eighties (before ebay and www) for $2 dollars each. At any rate, I'm coming to the conclusion that it's operator error and let it go at that.
Thanks to everyone for their help. There are a great group of people in this forum..the moderators should be proud. Some day I'll report on the very earliest of the forums, (before www) and how Patrick Leach without knowing it or me, slid me down the slope...
Regards,
George
I hate to keep boring people with this thread but a couple of things...I'd love to have you look at it in person. TLOML and I were in Ireland ( the home of her fathers ancestors) last fall and hoped to do Scotland (home of her mothers tree) this year. But..can't get my youngest off the ice, lacrosse fields, etc., so looks like we won't make it. But if I do, I'll make sure I carry the, "ornery one", with me...the LN not TLOML.
The other point, one of the Stanleys has a Hock replacement blade and the other a like new type "V" blade. I don't believe it had ever been sharpened before I got it, if that means anything. Gloat..picked them up in the mid eighties (before ebay and www) for $2 dollars each. At any rate, I'm coming to the conclusion that it's operator error and let it go at that.
Thanks to everyone for their help. There are a great group of people in this forum..the moderators should be proud. Some day I'll report on the very earliest of the forums, (before www) and how Patrick Leach without knowing it or me, slid me down the slope...
Regards,
George
engineer one
Established Member
ok so i checked my books and a fount of knowledge.
it is not really possible with the kind of hardening and tempering that
LN claims to do for there to be "soft" bits within the blade. cryogenic and
other terms mean that the steel is able to be hardened and tempered
on a more scientific basis.
this is not to say however that the steel may occassionally be of such a quality that it does not take and keep an edge properly. it is not something
we expect from LN, but are used to with marples etc.
but i still feel that had this been a widespread problem we would have
heard about it before, unless of course all the early buyers were
collectors :lol: :lol: :lol:
i still think that the plane needs to be returned to LN for them to investigate and then maybe respond to us and let us know what happened.
paul :wink:
it is not really possible with the kind of hardening and tempering that
LN claims to do for there to be "soft" bits within the blade. cryogenic and
other terms mean that the steel is able to be hardened and tempered
on a more scientific basis.
this is not to say however that the steel may occassionally be of such a quality that it does not take and keep an edge properly. it is not something
we expect from LN, but are used to with marples etc.
but i still feel that had this been a widespread problem we would have
heard about it before, unless of course all the early buyers were
collectors :lol: :lol: :lol:
i still think that the plane needs to be returned to LN for them to investigate and then maybe respond to us and let us know what happened.
paul :wink:
Alf
Established Member
Paul, I'm not sure that the older, O1 irons were cryogenicaly treated.
Cheers, Alf
Cheers, Alf
I went the L-N way with mine.. gave both my Stanleys an L-N upgrade blade and improved chip breaker.. made a hellova difference to the pair of em, but they're still outclassed in performance by the proper L-N's..
engineer one
Established Member
alf. sure you are right, i was only basing my comment on my most
recent purchases, l think my first LN was bought in 2001/2, so maybe things have improved in the steel process. i am sure that tom had to
experiment, but i am still confused that it should only be one type
of blade, not the whole range.
has anyone else within the forum had problems with any other
LN blades, has anyone change blades between different bodies
to see whether it is the blades or the particular blade.
i do however agree that s**t happens even with the best laid
plans of mice and men.
derek i think you need to send the blade or plane to tom.
paul
recent purchases, l think my first LN was bought in 2001/2, so maybe things have improved in the steel process. i am sure that tom had to
experiment, but i am still confused that it should only be one type
of blade, not the whole range.
has anyone else within the forum had problems with any other
LN blades, has anyone change blades between different bodies
to see whether it is the blades or the particular blade.
i do however agree that s**t happens even with the best laid
plans of mice and men.
derek i think you need to send the blade or plane to tom.
paul
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
Let me start by saying that this thread has gone to areas far beyond my anticipation (sometimes I am very naive, I know). My concern is that there is a general criticism, implied or direct, of LN rather than just an examination of this one blade as a source of curiosity (because we all know that LN produce simply wonderful stuff, and their support service is second to none - OK, on a par with LV). Interestingly, the thread seems to have died on WC, which is always a potentially critical forum, where no one questioned my conclusion regarding the possible differential softness of the iron.
To try and obtain some balance here, I have some information that I will share. I have received copies of the communication between the owner of the plane and Tom Lie-Nielson. This is the gist:
Firstly, it appears that the owner, while on holiday from Oz in 2000, went to the LN factory in Maine to pick out and purchase a #4 1/2. Once there he discovered that they were sold out. LN graciously (no doubt) helped out by putting one together from available parts.
The owner used it exactly once, out of the box (i.e. he had done no grinding or honing of the iron), found the performance disappointing, and set it aside (as he has other planes he prefers to use anyway, such as a LN #62 and a LN #5). The plane only came out of the box for my review.
The tool steel predates A2. The cap iron was updated recently when a local store cleared its stock.
Tom L-N promptly offered to replace the iron, sight unseen, which the owner has accepted. I really would like the original iron to be returned to LN since this is not only fair to them but I do want to know what the problem is. I have written to both Tom and the plane's owner. My wish is that I get the replacement iron to complete the review, and that LN send back their review of the iron in question. Then we have closure.
Regards from Perth
Derek
To try and obtain some balance here, I have some information that I will share. I have received copies of the communication between the owner of the plane and Tom Lie-Nielson. This is the gist:
Firstly, it appears that the owner, while on holiday from Oz in 2000, went to the LN factory in Maine to pick out and purchase a #4 1/2. Once there he discovered that they were sold out. LN graciously (no doubt) helped out by putting one together from available parts.
The owner used it exactly once, out of the box (i.e. he had done no grinding or honing of the iron), found the performance disappointing, and set it aside (as he has other planes he prefers to use anyway, such as a LN #62 and a LN #5). The plane only came out of the box for my review.
The tool steel predates A2. The cap iron was updated recently when a local store cleared its stock.
Tom L-N promptly offered to replace the iron, sight unseen, which the owner has accepted. I really would like the original iron to be returned to LN since this is not only fair to them but I do want to know what the problem is. I have written to both Tom and the plane's owner. My wish is that I get the replacement iron to complete the review, and that LN send back their review of the iron in question. Then we have closure.
Regards from Perth
Derek
engineer one
Established Member
derek thanks for sharing,
i wonder whether the owner would have found it disappointing had he
not had other LN products???
i do agree that LN have a good reputation for after sales service, like
LV, and we should be thankful that today it is possible to deal at
"reasonable" prices with companies that have that consideration.
i think that in and on principal, you have been very fair to LN, and in bringing this to our attention, you have given us all a chance to check and verify the quality of a product we had maybe taken for granted.
it will be interesting to see whether tom is prepared to release the information about the returned blade, it would certainly increase
my respect for him. i do feel having talked with him face to face
once i found him very keen to respond to all kinds of customer
concerns, including that for information.
lets hope the next blade works, but maybe you should get the client
to return the whole plane, not just the blade.
all the best
paul :wink:
i wonder whether the owner would have found it disappointing had he
not had other LN products???
i do agree that LN have a good reputation for after sales service, like
LV, and we should be thankful that today it is possible to deal at
"reasonable" prices with companies that have that consideration.
i think that in and on principal, you have been very fair to LN, and in bringing this to our attention, you have given us all a chance to check and verify the quality of a product we had maybe taken for granted.
it will be interesting to see whether tom is prepared to release the information about the returned blade, it would certainly increase
my respect for him. i do feel having talked with him face to face
once i found him very keen to respond to all kinds of customer
concerns, including that for information.
lets hope the next blade works, but maybe you should get the client
to return the whole plane, not just the blade.
all the best
paul :wink:
David C
In Memorium
Derek,
The concept of trying a plane, out of the box, without honing the blade or checking the front edge of the capiron/chipbreaker is quite frankly LUDICROUS.
I find it deeply depressing that anyone would even think of doing this.
Blades do not arrive sharp, and I know of no manufacturer whose chipbreaker front edges are properly prepared. {of course there may be exceptions, Bridge City perhaps?}
For any plane to work well, we must have a sharp blade, a properly prepared chipbreaker edge and a flat enough sole.
Even these simple requirements are not easy for the beginner, which is why I spend the majority of my summer running short courses to help people perfect these issues.
The revelation of working with a properly prepared tool causes such joyand amazement, that my job continues to be deeply satisfying.
David Charlesworth
The concept of trying a plane, out of the box, without honing the blade or checking the front edge of the capiron/chipbreaker is quite frankly LUDICROUS.
I find it deeply depressing that anyone would even think of doing this.
Blades do not arrive sharp, and I know of no manufacturer whose chipbreaker front edges are properly prepared. {of course there may be exceptions, Bridge City perhaps?}
For any plane to work well, we must have a sharp blade, a properly prepared chipbreaker edge and a flat enough sole.
Even these simple requirements are not easy for the beginner, which is why I spend the majority of my summer running short courses to help people perfect these issues.
The revelation of working with a properly prepared tool causes such joyand amazement, that my job continues to be deeply satisfying.
David Charlesworth
Paul Chapman
Established Member
David C":1a6rgkzs said:
I couldn't agree more. I have been quite baffled at how many writers in woodworking magazines seem to see this concept of how well a plane works out of the box as some sort of guide as to how good a plane is. Then in subsequent articles they write about how important it is to flatten and polish the back of a blade.
No wonder beginners are sometimes confused.
Paul
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
Hi David
You won't get an argument from me on this one.
I recall someone asked why I filed the cap iron if there wasn't anything wrong with it. I knew it was new and therefore I filed it. I am sure Descartes would have said something like that as well
I wonder, though, whether it is altogether unreasonable - or, rather, at what level it would be reasonable to expect to buy a perfectly set up handplane that works out of the box? Certainly not of a mass produced item, such as either LN or LV. But a high end plane, such as one from Wayne Anderson or Karl Holtey - I certainly would. Philip Marcou's came ready to use. He made a point of doing so, and told me to expect it (to paraphrase Philip), "because that is what Americans expect" (or some such similar words).
The point is that there seems to be some assumption, a myth perhaps, that planes from LN are "ready to go". I suspect that there is a similar assumption from novices that if its new it must be good. I wonder how many newbies proudly unwrap their new Stanley #4 and, without any further preparation, push it across a board. No wonder so many power users look upon handplanes as the creation of some sado-masochistic lunatic. Do you think that woodworkers should be able to claim tuition on the National Health? Perhaps psychiatry? :lol:
Regards from Perth
Derek
You won't get an argument from me on this one.
I recall someone asked why I filed the cap iron if there wasn't anything wrong with it. I knew it was new and therefore I filed it. I am sure Descartes would have said something like that as well
I wonder, though, whether it is altogether unreasonable - or, rather, at what level it would be reasonable to expect to buy a perfectly set up handplane that works out of the box? Certainly not of a mass produced item, such as either LN or LV. But a high end plane, such as one from Wayne Anderson or Karl Holtey - I certainly would. Philip Marcou's came ready to use. He made a point of doing so, and told me to expect it (to paraphrase Philip), "because that is what Americans expect" (or some such similar words).
The point is that there seems to be some assumption, a myth perhaps, that planes from LN are "ready to go". I suspect that there is a similar assumption from novices that if its new it must be good. I wonder how many newbies proudly unwrap their new Stanley #4 and, without any further preparation, push it across a board. No wonder so many power users look upon handplanes as the creation of some sado-masochistic lunatic. Do you think that woodworkers should be able to claim tuition on the National Health? Perhaps psychiatry? :lol:
Regards from Perth
Derek
David C
In Memorium
Dear Derek,
Not looking for an arguement at all, and agree that handplanes are troublesome and frustrating for the beginner.
I believe that Robert Ingham said it was necessary for the student to work alongside the teacher, and am acutely aware how difficult it is for some to learn from the written word or even from DVDs. At least a DVD shows what is possible.
I gave up chasing manufacturers to include meaningfull tuning notes with planes after about 20 years of trying. They apparantly see this as an admission of fault and fear that the information will be used to denigrate the tool quality.
In the very old days of apprenticeship, there would have been skilled men to pass on the essential preparation and tuning skills, which are somehow accepted in our strange trade. I have great sympathy for the average amateur, who has no such resource. Hence my efforts to describe these matters, and yours which I am sure are much appreciated.
best,
David
Not looking for an arguement at all, and agree that handplanes are troublesome and frustrating for the beginner.
I believe that Robert Ingham said it was necessary for the student to work alongside the teacher, and am acutely aware how difficult it is for some to learn from the written word or even from DVDs. At least a DVD shows what is possible.
I gave up chasing manufacturers to include meaningfull tuning notes with planes after about 20 years of trying. They apparantly see this as an admission of fault and fear that the information will be used to denigrate the tool quality.
In the very old days of apprenticeship, there would have been skilled men to pass on the essential preparation and tuning skills, which are somehow accepted in our strange trade. I have great sympathy for the average amateur, who has no such resource. Hence my efforts to describe these matters, and yours which I am sure are much appreciated.
best,
David
