David charlesworth, cambered blade with a back bevel?

[woodbrains]

Hello,

That sounds like you are asking someone to do extensive comparative testing! I think many here are referencing accumulated knowledge from years of working experience, but objective testing is time consuming and a bit dull. I would rather work wood to make something and gauge how well techniques work as I go and compared to past experiences that have already long since been finished.

David, have you not measured/photographic results from your writing. I just don't have the time to do a raft of testing at the minute, I've so many projects underway all at once. I would be interested if someone were o to the test, though.

Mike.

 

[David C]

Mike,

It would be exactly as you say, time consuming and dull !

Just musing,

Best wishes,
David

 

[Jacob]

....
Wouldn't it be nice to see some definitive evidence?

best wishes,
David

Isn't the lack of "definitive evidence" evidence in itself? Inferences, even conclusions, could be drawn.

 

[Corneel]

What kind of evidence are you looking for? What is the research question?

 

[woodbrains]

....
Wouldn't it be nice to see some definitive evidence?

best wishes,
David

Isn't the lack of "definitive evidence" evidence in itself? Inferences, even conclusions, could be drawn.

Hello,

There is plenty of evidence; cap irons, high EP's, fine mouthes, scraping etc. etc. all demonstrably work at taming tearout. You can't contend that just because there is no documented evidence all in one comparative study, that these things don't exist. You have an aazing knack of drawing entirely the wrong conclusion from what is right in front of you. You can't be telling us that you have never noticed certain plane settings make tearout better or worse than others. This is evidence! Or is your attitude to planing so indifferent, that a ROS is the panacea for you?

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Ooh who rattled Woodbrain's cage? :lol:
If you read what I said carefully you will see that I didn't come to any conclusion at all.
Actually I agree with you - there's plenty of anecdotal evidence from plane users. The problem is that attempts to isolate any one variable (e.g.specific angles) is difficult if not impossible, and probably pointless.
Like that depth-of-cut against force experiment in another thread - could easily take you to utterly incorrect conclusions and often does.

 

[David C]

Oh dear Mike. You have entirely misinterpreted my post, which is my fault as it is rather badly phrased.

I am interested in the relationship between high EPs and the KK method. In the Chris Schwarz article, the notion that EP plus c/b angle is equivalent to an EP of the same angle seems dubious to me.

David

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Okay, suffering here from brain farts of forgetfulness, and all these acronyms and letterisations are driving me to distraction. Could somebody be kind enough to spell out what the following mean:

* EP = ?
* KK method = ?
* c/b, also sometimes CB = cap iron, maybe, or are we for adopting the (alien to me at least) term chip breaker here?

Any others I've missed. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

Okay, suffering here from brain farts of forgetfulness, and all these acronyms and letterisations are driving me to distraction. Could somebody be kind enough to spell out what the following mean:

* EP = ?
* KK method = ?
* c/b, also sometimes CB = cap iron, maybe, or are we for adopting the (alien to me at least) term chip breaker here?

Any others I've missed. Slainte.

Best not to ask. It'll only set them off again just when we were all finally dropping off to sleep.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Best not to ask. It'll only set them off again just when we were all finally dropping off to sleep.

Too late. I've already asked, and I'm only just waking up to the subject of this thread, it being something I've probably never thought about much. That's the problem with being basically a simple sharp'n'go man myself all these years: nae finesse. Slainte.

 

[Corneel]

As far as I know, EP refers to effective pitch, the cutting angle. And KK refears to the video from the Japanese professors Kato and Kawai. They surely didn't invent the method of course, but did the best documentation of it so far.

I have been investigating this stuff a lot this year. I have actually setup a measuring jig with force transducers. I know it's geeky to the n-th degree, so I understand when it doesn't interest most people. But I was curious how high cutting angles compare to close set capirons. To be able to compare like for like I investigated first how they both perform in preventing tearout. This was published on Steve Elliotts site early this year: http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/cap_iron_study_by_kees_van_der.html.

I have been working hard on this project (quite a few technical challenges) and am almost finished with the second article. I am now in Thailand, so you'll all have to wait a bit. We're just back from three weeks in Myanmar, and I am bit worn out. Some of the best times in my life. I wish my stomach would agree though. As soon as I am back I'll also share some pictures of woodworking in Burma.

 

[Trafalgar]

When this 'stuff' all hit the internet I took a look at my cap irons. In the process of flattening the leading edge to fit gap-free against the flat back of the iron I had planed a wall at the edge of the cap iron. In flattening the cap iron a burr is produced at the leading edge. I always chased this burr back and forth, like one would do on a cutter, until it was gone. As a result, the leading edge of my cap irons are all sharp, easily sharp enough to cut flesh at a particular angle, and they all have a polished and steep area where I worked the burr back and forth when getting them to fit their mating iron.

I'd never really thought much about it. It didn't seem smart to me to leave a burr out there at the edge so I got rid of it.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

As far as I know, EP refers to effective pitch, the cutting angle. And KK refears to the video from the Japanese professors Kato and Kawai. They surely didn't invent the method of course, but did the best documentation of it so far.

Ah. Got it. Thanks.

I have been investigating this stuff a lot this year. I have actually setup a measuring jig with force transducers. I know it's geeky to the n-th degree, so I understand when it doesn't interest most people.

I suspect many people have geeky passions -they're frequently harmless, and can sometimes be very useful by adding to the sum of knowledge. Whilst the in-depth research and scrutiny into planes, historical examples of them, nit-picking comparisons between a Stanley No 4 from 1925 and one from 1926, tiddling with cap irons so that they're set back 0.0001 mm (sic) from the cutting edge, back bevels, ruler tricks, and other esoteric and arcane tricks to improve performance are not subjects of deep passion for me - I just want the darned thing to work pretty well, and when the plane doesn't do the job on really tricky grain there's always scrapers and sandpaper, my geeky(ish) passion is timber technology. Slainte.

 

[David C]

Richard,

I'm so glad you mentioned improved performance, cos that's what we get !

I must say I am extremely concerned that carcase construction is correct and that drawer fronts are not going to destroy a carcase, if the piece should get left in damp storage for a while.

It's great fun looking for the results of rubbish construction as one goes about.

Best wishes,
David

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Richard,

I'm so glad you mentioned improved performance, cos that's what we get !

I must say I am extremely concerned that carcase construction is correct and that drawer fronts are not going to destroy a carcase, if the piece should get left in damp storage for a while.

It's great fun looking for the results of rubbish construction as one goes about.

Best wishes,
David

David, I must admit I sometimes struggle a bit to see the validity of some of the suggested techniques to improve performance. Some I can't deny, such as back angling bevel down plane irons, but I've never done it because I'd either need two irons or I'd need to set up a (somewhat) time consuming system for being able to repeat the back angle. If I want a higher pitch I can always get a plane with the blade set at the higher pitch. Setting the cap iron super close (0.1 or 0.2 mm) I find is usually defeated by the slight additional bevel I knock off each corner of the iron, even though I generally slightly arc the cutting edge too. In this example I'd need to fashion the cap iron to suit the arc, plus corner bevels, of the iron. All the above is more faff than I want to bother with, which is not to say I don't believe the techniques work.

My planes work well enough, even though I don't get very fussed about them and their set-up, and as I said before, there's always scrapers and abrasive paper, the latter either hand operated or machine driven.

Oh yes, my timber tech manuscript is done, and on the hunt for a publisher, which is proving a bit of a challenge. If I can get it out there, maybe that'll help a bit with the drawer/ carcass thing you mentioned, and other woody topics. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

......I must say I am extremely concerned that carcase construction is correct and that drawer fronts are not going to destroy a carcase, if the piece should get left in damp storage for a while.......

Why are you so concerned Dave? Is your house damp?
Are you going to expand on this oblique comment or just remain enigmatic?
Is there another way to make drawers work even when damp, other than by simply making them loose in the first place? :shock:

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Why are you so concerned Dave?

Jacob, I guess the comment was oblique or obscure to you because I suspect the comment was a sort of personal, slightly jokey, one between David and myself, him being aware of a long term research and academic writing exercise I've been working on. It's also something that we discussed when we met, and I've supplied him with a PDF version of a small section of the text that he could pass on to his students if he thought it might be useful to them. Slainte.

 

[Trafalgar]

Is there another way to make drawers work even when damp, other than by simply making them loose in the first place?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[AndyT]

I wonder if the point under debate is the one we discussed a while back - about minimising exposed end grain on drawer fronts to reduce seasonal size changes?

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/visual-reference-sources-dovetail-joints-t76661.html

 

[Peter Sefton]

Possibly more like choice of timber species and it's movement factors, and whether it's tangental or quarter sawn.
Then the construction factors come to play, traditional drawer sides, runners, kickers and slips or a centre muntin slip guide.
All these factors affect the running of a drawer over the seasons.
Peter