David charlesworth, cambered blade with a back bevel?

[Trafalgar]

Thin quartersawn material for sides whenever possible, but aesthetics and the design won't always allow for quartersawn fronts, thick varnish finish, etc.

If it's built during the dry season you have to allow scope for expansion.

 

[J_SAMa]

Re setting cap iron close to cambered edge: I set the cap iron so it protrudes past the iron on either side, exposing only the central part of the edge. Only the center is going to cut.
————————————————————————————————————————————————

http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.shtml
^According to that we should just buy infills and be done with it!!!

A few observations to be made:
a) Best non-infill plane, Muji HA had no cap iron.
b) It out performed a similarly pitched, back beveled LV plane.
c) It was in fact one of the lightest planes tested...
d) ...Which begs the question as to why infills are superior? It it were just the mass, LN and LV should be just as good.

Sam

 

[woodbrains]

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

Hello,

Sorry David, but I think it was me who was unclear! I was actually commenting on Jacob's complete 'non-statement' about there being no evidence, and your quote was just tagging along. I am also interested in whether a close set capiron does exactly the same as a hight EP or not and in fact pondered a similar question in another thread. I would also be interested to know why the planeed surface from a cap iron effect is better than that from a card scraper, which is essentially a device with a super close cap iron. ( It is still not as good as no strong cap iron effect and wood that does not tear out, but there is an acceptable compromise) And also, since planes do actually have soles in front of the cutter (KK test omission) what effect this has on the cap iron setting. i.e. wil a closer mouth allow a less close set cap iron for a similar result? If this is so, wouldn't this be a close equivalent to York pitched infills with fine mouths, which seem to work well?

Mike.

 

[J_SAMa]

Corneel, correct me if I'm wrong, but you dislike tight mouths because they tend to clog, right? Did you have wooden planes in mind when you made that statement? On my No. 4, I am perfectly happy with the combination of a 0.15 mm mouth and a cap iron micro-beveled at 40* and set 0.2 to 0.4 mm (estimated) away from the edge. The shavings just curl up between the aperture and the cross rib right behind the handle. I doubt that'll work well with a woodies's deeper, more cramped escapement.

So maybe we should just say a tight mouth works better for a Bailey than it does a woodie. 8)

 

[bugbear]

Corneel, correct me if I'm wrong, but you dislike tight mouths because they tend to clog, right? Did you have wooden planes in mind when you made that statement? On my No. 4, I am perfectly happy with the combination of a 0.15 mm mouth and a cap iron micro-beveled at 40* and set 0.2 to 0.4 mm (estimated) away from the edge. The shavings just curl up between the aperture and the cross rib right behind the handle. I doubt that'll work well with a woodies's deeper, more cramped escapement.

So maybe we should just say a tight mouth works better for a Bailey than it does a woodie. 8)

Ah, as ever it's more complicated than that. H N T Gordon planes (made of wood) are sold with extremely tight mouths, and don't clog.

BugBear

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Thin quartersawn material for sides whenever possible.

It's not necessarily always a good match Charles, assuming there's a plan to mix this choice with tangentially sawn drawer fronts, although I realise you mentioned 1/4 sawn drawer fronts in your post. It's a good match when radially sawn European oak drawer sides are paired with tangentially sawn American mahogany fronts: the shrinkage factor of the radially sawn oak is very close to the shrinkage factor for American mahogany, i.e., both very slightly over 5% as they dry from green to 0% MC.

Switching the choice around wouldn't be ideal I'd say, and mahogany was often used for drawer sides in the past, i.e., 1/4 sawn mahogany sides with tangentially sawn European oak, where shrinkage factors are typically 3.7% for the former, and 8.9% for the latter.

However, having said all that I suggest the latter choice might only become a problem if the drawer is especially deep top to bottom, e.g., 250 mm (10") or more, and such depth, although somewhat rare is not unheard of.

As to the general topic of fitting drawers to openings, the so called 'piston fit' drawer I suggest really only has applications in smaller drawers, the sort of things you might find in jewellery cabinets or internal compartments of desks, and the like. For general carcasses such as chests of drawers and so on there's no point making them a really tight fit in the opening for all the reasons already mentioned in this thread - who wants drawers jammed solid in the summer and only usable in the winter and spring (here in the UK in most residences)? Slainte.

 

[J_SAMa]

Corneel, correct me if I'm wrong, but you dislike tight mouths because they tend to clog, right? Did you have wooden planes in mind when you made that statement? On my No. 4, I am perfectly happy with the combination of a 0.15 mm mouth and a cap iron micro-beveled at 40* and set 0.2 to 0.4 mm (estimated) away from the edge. The shavings just curl up between the aperture and the cross rib right behind the handle. I doubt that'll work well with a woodies's deeper, more cramped escapement.

So maybe we should just say a tight mouth works better for a Bailey than it does a woodie. 8)

Ah, as ever it's more complicated than that. H N T Gordon planes (made of wood) are sold with extremely tight mouths, and don't clog.

BugBear

Let me rephrase that... Given a closely set cap iron, a Bailey clogs less than a woodie does.
HNT Gordon's planes are cap iron-less so clogging would be less pronounced it at all. Although the cabinet pitch would "break" the shavings much more than common pitch I doubt it does that as much as a cap iron.

 

[Corneel]

In woodies indeed, clogging is an issue, especially tge western ones with back leaning wear. In a Bailey plane another thing is important. You get the best support of the iron when you pull the frog back. So tight mouths and close set irons work probably best in a Bedrock. Indeed you should watch the front bevel of the capiron, don't make it too steep, 40 degrees like yours seems perfect.

 

[Trafalgar]

Thin quartersawn material for sides whenever possible.

It's not necessarily always a good match Charles, assuming there's a plan to mix this choice with tangentially sawn drawer fronts, although I realise you mentioned 1/4 sawn drawer fronts in your post. It's a good match when radially sawn European oak drawer sides are paired with tangentially sawn American mahogany fronts: the shrinkage factor of the radially sawn oak is very close to the shrinkage factor for American mahogany, i.e., both very slightly over 5% as they dry from green to 0% MC.

Switching the choice around wouldn't be ideal I'd say, and mahogany was often used for drawer sides in the past, i.e., 1/4 sawn mahogany sides with tangentially sawn European oak, where shrinkage factors are typically 3.7% for the former, and 8.9% for the latter.

However, having said all that I suggest the latter choice might only become a problem if the drawer is especially deep top to bottom, e.g., 250 mm (10") or more, and such depth, although somewhat rare is not unheard of.

As to the general topic of fitting drawers to openings, the so called 'piston fit' drawer I suggest really only has applications in smaller drawers, the sort of things you might find in jewellery cabinets or internal compartments of desks, and the like. For general carcasses such as chests of drawers and so on there's no point making them a really tight fit in the opening for all the reasons already mentioned in this thread - who wants drawers jammed solid in the summer and only usable in the winter and spring (here in the UK in most residences)? Slainte.

The real issue with drawer fit is on the guides and runners not the opening is it not?

If the sides and backs are going to be thin, they need to be in as stable an iteration as can be found. For sure, the fit in the aperture should never run the risk of jamming but a too close fit is only one way a drawer can jam. If the side and back material twist and put the drawer box in twist it'll jam then as well. There's no real way to fix this once the drawer is glued up. One can always take an extra shaving or two off an untwisted drawer but one whose side(s) has (have) cast is a much tougher customer. This is one reason thin material is used for drawer sides in the first place - it's harder for them to exert their influence over a thicker drawer front. Using quartersawn material for the sides is further insurance that the box stays flat.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

The real issue with drawer fit is on the guides and runners not the opening is it not?

On the whole I agree with you, although the squareness of the drawer box has a part to play too. The point I was making is that the height of the drawer box can change, and if the drawer box side material has significantly different shrinkage/expansion characteristics to the material used for the front, then there is some potential, albeit small in most cases, for problems, e.g., dovetails loosening through this differential shrinkage due to compression of wood, the slight possibility of a split developing in one or more of the parts, and even jamming of the drawer through expansion as the wood takes on moisture. This latter fault can be dealt with, as you say, by skimming a bit off the top edge of the relevant parts.

As to drawer side thickness, I take your point regarding thin drawer sides as opposed to thick drawer sides, and their potential ability to distort the assembly. I have seen slender drawer sides that have cupped over the years - decades and centuries usually, even 1/4 sawn oak drawer sides, but it's been rare, and I've seen decades and centuries old drawers that are no longer sound one way or another: actually I've seen poorly made drawers that are a crock of sh*t after just a few years, but that's a whole different story really.

In my own drawer making efforts over the too may decades I've been in this line of work, I can't recall more than two or three occasions where I've sought out 1/4 sawn material for drawer sides. This means that I've just used whatever was to hand, although I have always ensured the parts I use(d) didn't or don't show obvious signs of stress, e.g., significant warp of one sort or another shortly after truing up. I seldom make drawer sides and backs thicker that 12 mm (~1/2"), and that's usually because their either very large drawers or being mounted on runners where a 10 mm (3/8") screw attaches the slide. Typically, my drawer sides are between 7 and 10 mm thick, usually with a slip at that sort of slimness. Over the years I can't recall there being problems such as the ones enumerated by you, e.g., twisting, casting, etc.

Overall then, I suspect the 1/4 sawn for drawer sides always 'directive' is a bit overblown, but not 'wrong' if the material for fronts is chosen to match side and rear parts, e.g., 1/4 sawn European oak is a good match with tangentially sawn American mahogany drawer fronts (as I mentioned in an earlier post), but not so good the other way around. Slainte.

 

[Trafalgar]

Good stuff. Thanks.

I have a lifetime's supply of quartersawn oak which is a long story for another day.

 

[Peter Sefton]

Good stuff. Thanks.

I have a lifetime's supply of quartersawn oak which is a long story for another day.

We never see AM Quarter Sawn Oak in the UK, now I know why!

 

[David C]

There are ways, Peter.

For quartered drawer side material , I buy the widest possible, 3" thick stuff and then rip 10mm strips on the bandsaw. A technique I learned from Robert Ingham.

The 3" wide planks are almost inevariably tangential.

Best wishes,
David

 

[Trafalgar]

Good stuff. Thanks.

I have a lifetime's supply of quartersawn oak which is a long story for another day.

We never see AM Quarter Sawn Oak in the UK, now I know why!

I own about 9,500 bd. ft (not a typo) of almost all quarter and rift sawn oak from 12/4 down to 4/4 (mostly white oak) that I bought in a 'shrewd' business deal -- I'm being very facetious about the shrewd part. It's really an albatross. It's in the warehouse of a lumber dealer I use and I swap a little for other species every now and then. Oak is ubiquitous around here (Southeastern U.S.) if you know where to look you can buy it very inexpensively.