Bailey style planes, thin irons and cap-irons.

[D_W]

Hi Chappie; if you review the video again, Sellers explains that high pitch noise in a different context.

regards Stewie;

Stewie - despite what Sellers says, that's chatter. It's a very distinctive noise.

I fully accept that some people think it doesn't exist. Fine - they're perfectly entitled to their opinion. However, I have experienced it, and suspect that others may also have done without necessarily knowing what the cause was; I'll state my case and allow others to make their own minds up.

What's your thought on why lubrication of the sole relieved it?

I've, of course, experienced some chatter with stanley planes in the case where the cut wasn't started securely, and I've experienced the type sellers shows on really wide end grain (with any plane, actually, when the workpiece is too far from the vise itself).

I think the straws of the wood gripping the bottom of the plane have a lot to do with it. I used to have the same chatter-type when trying to get too quick with a bevel up jack, eliminating it with wax and being deliberate to start the cut interrupted. I can be quick now without chatter, and probably the fastest plane I have to work endgrain to a mark on a panel is a chinese-made continental smoother (which doesn't chatter the same way and doesn't give the ends of the wood straws a grip). I still rarely reach for it over a stanley, because the stanley is at hand. But it's fast, and it convinced me to sell my bevel up plane which I had assumed was the standard for end grain due to all of the internet hullabaloo about such things.

 

[bugbear]

Stewie - despite what Sellers says, that's chatter. It's a very distinctive noise.

I fully accept that some people think it doesn't exist. Fine - they're perfectly entitled to their opinion. However, I have experienced it, and suspect that others may also have done without necessarily knowing what the cause was; I'll state my case and allow others to make their own minds up.

What's your thought on why lubrication of the sole relieved it?

If chatter is a resonance, it's reasonable to assume it's affected by speed of stroke, and it's reasonable to assume
that lubrication affects speed of stroke.

BugBear (feeling reasonable)

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I'm not sure that lubricating the sole had anything to do with stopping the chatter, though obviously less friction between wood and plane sole is almost always a good thing in itself, since it means less effort to push the plane (I do note BB's point about speed of stroke, though - interesting thought). In this instance, I think skewing the plane was sufficient to alleviate the problem. I've done the same myself with similar effect.

It's true that springy bits of wood can give rise to much the same effect, and that gripping them more securely (to take the spring out of them) usually stops the problem. In the video instance above, though, the workpiece was a pretty substantial chunk held low down in the vice, so the springing was not down to the wood, but the blade.

 

[D_W]

that's why I made the comment about the bench. It could be the bench that's causing the resonance and not the plane. Without using that bench, though, it's hard to tell.

And perhaps sometimes it's a combination of things. I get fewer "big" skips with a small plane on endgrain (like a smoother) than something like a LV BU jack plane (which is what I had previously used).

Thinking the problem was weight on large panels, I had, for a while, waxed often and used a LN 7 (now also long gone), but that made the friction problem worse. Less problem with wooden planes, short planes and planes that don't have a dead flat bottom.

This kind of stuff is a blog testers dream, because if you wax a plane and take one short stroke, you can make the heavier planes seem better. In a work rhythm where you're actually trying to get something done with some briskness, though, one stroke tests and real work context reality don't match.

 

[Jacob]

Sellers screech is due to a combination of things - friction, workpiece sticking out too far from vice, not very rigid bench (you can see it moving with each stroke). As it happens reducing friction alone was enough to fix it, but the other issues could also have been remedied if necessary. As we have said - you don't really get chatter with a bench plane except for these sorts of external reasons (technique, set up, bench etc).
My bench is a good deal heavier than Sellers' and hence much less chatter prone.
Surprised at his wax pot thing - I just scribble with a bit of candle; quick, clean, invisible, one candle lasts for years

 

[swagman]

Hi Chappie. I wasnt trying to question your diagnoses. I was only highlighting what Sellers thoughts were.

If I could just add to the dicussion on chatter. That being that wooden beds are known to be less succeptable to chatter than their steel cousins, Wood has an inherant quility of being able aborb most of the vibrations that lead to chatter. As for lubricating the soles; be it wooden or steel, I tend to favor paste waste as its readily available. Historically Mutton Fat was the preferred lubricant by early craftsman for wooden soled planes. The Mutton Fat was commonly stored, ready to use in traditional grease pots. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=grea ... gFBA&dpr=2

Stewie;

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Don't think the bench can be blamed. The Sellers design is simple, but quite solid and rigid - indeed Jacob (of this parish) has been praising it to the high heavens and recommending it to all and sundry ever since Sellers released his bench-building videos a couple of years ago.

Woodie bench planes don't seem to chatter much at all, provided the irons bed nicely. That's most likely because the old-fashioned irons for wooden bench planes are pretty solid and substantial chunks, especially down by the bevel, and therefore don't flex at all under the sort of loads even a beefy woodworker can impose on them. Thinner-ironed moulding and side-escapement planes are a slightly different matter, especially if they're not bedded and wedged just right, even though their irons tend to be thicker at the business end than a factory Bailey plane iron.

 

[Jacob]

Don't think the bench can be blamed. The Sellers design is simple, but quite solid and rigid........

You can see it shaking in the video. Keep your eye on the edge of the frame. Unless it's the camera man with the shakes of course.
Sellers is showing the situation which is most likely to cause chatter (end grain etc) and showing how to stop it happening. A stiffer heavier bench would have helped. Or lowering the workpiece in the vice. Or finer cut, sharper blade, and so on

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Don't think the bench can be blamed. The Sellers design is simple, but quite solid and rigid........

You can see it shaking in the video. Keep your eye on the edge of the frame. Unless it's the camera man with the shakes of course.
Sellers is showing the situation which is most likely to cause chatter (end grain etc) and showing how to stop it happening. A stiffer heavier bench would have helped. Or lowering the workpiece in the vice. Or finer cut, sharper blade, and so on

.......or a slightly thicker blade in the plane, or the existing thin blade with a better-fitted cap-iron. :lol:

By the way, I thought you liked the Sellers bench design?

 

[D_W]

It would seem that sellers already eliminated the chatter issue in the video without "improving" the plane.

 

[Jacob]

...

.......or a slightly thicker blade in the plane, or the existing thin blade with a better-fitted cap-iron. :lol:

By the way, I thought you liked the Sellers bench design?

No need to swap (expensive) components if you can do it the easy way.
Bench is good, but nothing is perfect!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

It would seem that sellers already eliminated the chatter issue in the video without "improving" the plane.

If his plane had been set up as per Leonard Bailey's patent (cap-iron pinching blade at three points along the iron) he might not have had the problem in the first place!

True, he skewed the plane and got over the problem, but you can't always skew the plane.

 

[D_W]

I just went back and watched the video. The plane may be less skewed after he added lubricant to the sole than it was before.

When you're doing what he's doing, you should be skewing the plane, anyway, else you can end up with significant breakout on the back side. I don't need to tell you why I know that.

I can't imagine ever making a planing stroke like he's making here (as jacob said, a full width endgrain cut on a hardwood, likely the most demanding cut there is in practice) in an area where you're restricted. I suppose it could happen, but you could just lubricate the sole like paul did. I've always had to lubricate the sole on every plane I've ever used working the ends of a beech billet or cutting the end of a wide panel.

 

[iNewbie]

Sellers screech is due to a combination of things - friction, workpiece sticking out too far from vice, not very rigid bench (you can see it moving with each stroke). As it happens reducing friction alone was enough to fix it, but the other issues could also have been remedied if necessary. As we have said - you don't really get chatter with a bench plane except for these sorts of external reasons (technique, set up, bench etc).
My bench is a good deal heavier than Sellers' and hence much less chatter prone.
Surprised at his wax pot thing - I just scribble with a bit of candle; quick, clean, invisible, one candle lasts for years

Thats his 4oz tomato can...

https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-co ... s-chatter/

 

[lurker]

I mentioned my no. 3 earlier
Had some time today so got out my glass sheet some 600 silicon cArbide paper and baby oil
A few strokes made the toe, heel and extreme edges all shine up.

Less than 5 mins and the whole sole was a nice Matt shine, so I guess my original measurements were about right.

Important point for anyone whe has never flattened a sole.
You must have the plane fully built as if you were going to use it and just retract the blade

 

[custard]

BUT is does raise an interesting point
This is wood we are talking about, are "engineering tolerances" valid?
I mean for actual end result on the wood, not the hobby of collecting shiny tools.

Yes, "engineering tolerances" are valid in woodworking.

Take the fit of a tenon in a mortice, you want a snug push fit that doesn't require hammering in but also won't drop out. The difference between these two positions is little more than a tenth of a mill, maybe two tenths at the very most, just five or six strokes with a shoulder plane will take you from too tight to fit without a mallet, to drops out under gravity alone.

Or what about the joint between a stile and rail on say a cupboard door. You want a joint that's completely flush, and a good craftsman will achieve that or very, very close to it, straight from the tools. But your fingers can detect a 0.001" proud edge, and a 0.1mm proud edge is screamingly obvious.

So just because no one expects the height of a wardrobe to be accurate to the nearest thou, the reality is that quality furniture making will often require working to very exacting tolerances.

 

[lurker]

I meant our tools not our product

I have a plane that was surface ground and is flat to a micro gnat but it does not really do anything to improve the wood I plane in comparison to the others that a nearly flat.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I've copied this comment over from the 'How to store handplanes' thread, because I suspect it may have ended up there in error;

"How odd.

Why do we never see cap irons which conform to Baileys patent?

Every one I have seen in the last 40 years touches the blade at tip, screw and maybe top. Never the the top end of the curve.

These were mostly new but a fair number of second hand ones too.

David Charlesworth"

It's a good question, and I suspect we'll never know the real answer. A couple of things that might be contributing factors; firstly, craftsmen don't usually read patent documents, so whilst they'd be well acquainted with the setting of cap-irons against tear-out, they wouldn't know about the subtleties of cap-iron shape for blade stiffening. Second, British manufacturers probably didn't read the patent documents in detail either; they just knew the patent was expired, and copied the planes that were around without perhaps understanding the subtleties of cap-iron shaping. It's easy to forget how quickly international documents can be accessed in the interweb age - not quite so easy in the 1930s. Thirdly, the big American manufacturers may also have forgotten. The planes work in 95% of circumstances without the three-point pinch, so over a period of time they looked for ways to make manufacture easier, the people who knew why that shaping was there having retired or moved on. That cap-iron shape may have been not quite to the patent spec. for about a century - but the planes would work that bit better when the going got tough if they were.

It's actually not obvious that the lever cap deflects the cap-iron quite a bit once it's in the plane, so just looking at a Bailey-patent fit cap-iron and blade screwed together out of the plane on the bench, it may appear that the cap-iron is loose near the cutting edge. With the lever-cap pressure on, it is probably seated quite adequately, provided it's properly shaped and fitted.

 

[D_W]

By feel there is a little bit more movement on the old style cap iron than there is on the new pancake style that is double thick, but that's judgement from the lever cap cam feel as well as the adjustment.

I'd suspect that the difference in actual movement is very tiny.

I think craftsmen probably didn't care about the patent information because their planes were already working fine.

 

[swagman]

http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _72443.htm

When thick plane-irons are used, their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap sufficiently to pre- vent 'buckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thin steel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where .it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I effectually prevent "buckling" and "chattering," whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.