Flattening Lie-nielsen planes

[custard]

Did you read how S&S get lapping to work properly?

BugBear

Can you elaborate?

Ed

This link from my page:

http://www.sauerandsteiner.com/news/200 ... sucks.html

BugBear

It's in the nature of these articles to be summary and incomplete. I hope so, because if it fully describes the lapping methodology of S&S then there's a flaw in their technique.

The article seems to suggest that their litmus test for flatness is to rest the plane on a datum surface, and then to try and insert feeler gauges underneath the sole. But I frequently see planes with a hollow patch immediately ahead of the blade. I've seen this with new planes, and in the case of older planes, where years of use have worn the sole in this area more than others, it's so common as to be the norm. Testing for flatness in the manner suggested by the article could produce a flat "skirt" that prevents a feeler gauge being inserted, but still retain this hollow. And I think it's this hollow which is the worst culprit when it comes to break out on difficult grain.

I'd still recommend the following,

1. Use a quality straight edge to understand the general topography of the sole.

2. Draw a grid pattern of lines all over the sole with a permanent marker.

3. Stick abrasive paper to 12mm or thicker, untoughened, float glass (or a flat marble block or a flat machine bed) which in turn rests on a piece of thick MDF on a flat bench.

4. To your earlier point, regularly remove the swarf and keep all the sole on the substrate.

5. Check that the grid pattern is being eroded consistent with the learning of the earlier straight edge inspection.

6. Lap until all or nearly all of the grid is removed (especially at the toe, heel, and immediately before and after the blade), then check again with a straight edge and feeler gauges at several positions on the sole.

 

[Mr Ed]

You'd better let Konrad Sauer know he's doing it wrong then..!?

Cheers, Ed

 

[tnimble]

I'd still recommend the following,
...list...

I've a few troubles with this recommendation.
- how does point / step 1 relate / affect points / steps 2 through 6?
- how does the evenly vading of the drawn grid ensure flattness? It only indicates an even surface wear or even solventability of the drawn grid. The sole can still have a consistent convex shape in multiple directions.
- a surface plate has to be supported by multiple points that have to be level, in plane and on specific locations within tolerances as stated by the manufacturer for its flatness to be guaranteed as stated in the certificate. Most manufacturers supply adjustable mounting frames or brackets for this. Some supply only fully mounted surface tables and locally do the final scraping and the certification process.
- how will the piece of MDF as recommended between the bench (which is not flat) and the bottom of the surface plate (which is also not flat) level out the variances in these surfaces?

 

[custard]

I'd still recommend the following,
...list...

I've a few troubles with this recommendation.
- how does point / step 1 relate / affect points / steps 2 through 6?
- how does the evenly vading of the drawn grid ensure flattness? It only indicates an even surface wear or even solventability of the drawn grid. The sole can still have a consistent convex shape in multiple directions.
- a surface plate has to be supported by multiple points that have to be level, in plane and on specific locations within tolerances as stated by the manufacturer for its flatness to be guaranteed as stated in the certificate. Most manufacturers supply adjustable mounting frames or brackets for this. Some supply only fully mounted surface tables and locally do the final scraping and the certification process.
- how will the piece of MDF as recommended between the bench (which is not flat) and the bottom of the surface plate (which is also not flat) level out the variances in these surfaces?

Flatness is a relative term. The flatness needed to make a bench plane perform better isn't the same flatness that's needed to build the Large Hadron Collider.

The proof of the pudding's in the eating, and the method outlined, if used with reasonable care, will produce finer shavings and reduce tear out.

 

[tnimble]

The proof of the pudding's in the eating, and the method outlined, if used with reasonable care, will produce finer shavings and reduce tear out.

S&S planes perform extremely well according to whom have tried them / own them. So their method is proven and can't be questioned by that standard.

 

[custard]

The proof of the pudding's in the eating, and the method outlined, if used with reasonable care, will produce finer shavings and reduce tear out.

S&S planes perform extremely well according to whom have tried them / own them. So their method is proven and can't be questioned by that standard.

Let me clear this up, I said that these articles are partial and incomplete, implying that there's surely more to the S&S testing process. I've never used an S&S plane but I'm sure they're superb performers.

 

[bugbear]

The proof of the pudding's in the eating, and the method outlined, if used with reasonable care, will produce finer shavings and reduce tear out.

As is the case, to a very high standard, of S&S's method, as demonstrated by the remarkable performance of their planes.

BugBear

 

[Benchwayze]

i wouldnt bother a LN plane will have bemade flat enough. i have a stanley no6 my fav plane always using it years old, never laped it etc. never needed to.

My LN No 4, bronze 'Bedrock' wasn't flat and it most certainly did not 'Use straight out the box.' (Not that I expected it would, with just the single 25 deg. bevel.) It planed very fine shavings, but I had to fettle it considerably to get it to produce a full width shaving. Also, although I am far from 'ham-fisted', a piece of fine Mahogany scratched the sole.

Most disappointed for what I paid. Hence, I didn't 'gloat' it. In fact I am even thinking of selling it.

John

 

[Karl]

My LN No 4, bronze 'Bedrock' wasn't flat and it most certainly did not 'Use straight out the box.' (Not that I expected it would, with just the single 25 deg. bevel.) It planed very fine shavings, but I had to fettle it considerably to get it to produce a full width shaving. Also, although I am far from 'ham-fisted', a piece of fine Mahogany scratched the sole.

Most disappointed for what I paid. Hence, I didn't 'gloat' it. In fact I am even thinking of selling it.

John

That is bad news John. Most dissapointing for a sizeable investment. But since you have "fettled" it, I doubt LN would do anything about it now. For future reference (if you decide to buy an LN plane in the future), I wouldn't even consider fettling. LN are pretty good about their products - I doubt they would want to have an unsatisfied customer.

I mentioned earlier that I had an LN 62 which was terrible - had a large hollow round the mouth area. Sent it back, and didn't buy a replacement.

Cheers

Karl

 

[Pete Howlett]

Maybe I am out on a limb here but a polished sole will create more friction and be harder to use. I hope we all have an old candle in our toolbox?

Secondly this seems to be a Lie Nielsen debate. Am I the only one here using Miller Falls planes? I love 'em. They need work, the lead screw is always quite slack but are they heavy and comfortable in the hands. I find the read paint inspires me...

I have also been disappointed with Clifton hand planes (their shoulder planes are a delight). I don't know why but they seemed very uncomfortable with the handle too far away from the frog. Is it just me or are these designs not quite right?

 

[jonbikebod]

Maybe I am out on a limb here but a polished sole will create more friction and be harder to use.

If you have actually tried this Pete and found there to be more friction, you must be doing something wrong…. :shock: If you are taking the view that Stanley did – less contact area = less friction, their corrugated sole planes didn’t in practice reduce friction which is why they were never very popular.
A polished sole should leave a superior finish to the wood with no chance of wax contamination.
Jon.

 

[tnimble]

Maybe I am out on a limb here but a polished sole will create more friction and be harder to use.

If you have actually tried this Pete and found there to be more friction, you must be doing something wrong…. :shock: If you are taking the view that Stanley did – less contact area = less friction, their corrugated sole planes didn’t in practice reduce friction which is why they were never very popular.
A polished sole should leave a superior finish to the wood with no chance of wax contamination.
Jon.

Besides the friction as in coulomb static or dynamic friction, which is only depend on the friction constant of the two material involved and the force perpendicular to the surface, there's also diffusive, electrostatic, mechanical and dispersive adhesion between materials and vacuum/atmospheric pressure induced normal force (which are in fact the properties that determine the friction constant).

For instance the mechanical adhesion reduces when a surface is polished, but diffusive, electrostatic and dispersive can increase. Also when two flat polished surfaces meet a vacuum can be created between those surfaces, this means the normal force Fn (friction Ff = μ . Fn) is increased up to by the atmospheric pressure (added to the already present man induced force and the weight of the plane)

The corrugated plane sole does not reduce friction by having less surface / contact area. It reduces the force F that can be induced by the atmospheric pressure p by having less area A (F = p . A). With green or high resin content woods the fluids in the wood seal the voids of the two meeting rough surfaces. There fore the corrugated have only merits in green wood working or with some special woods.

 

[Benchwayze]

2. How do you know that the float glass or other material used for the lapping is flat. Again if it is a certified reference surface then you know, but otherwise its hard to be sure - maybe you could check it with your straightedge (but see (1) above...)

3. Can you guarantee that the lapping can be done without rocking and creating a convexity in the sole - obviously it can be done but there is risk there and how do you know that you can make it better than it was to start with?

What I'm getting at here is that I am unconvinced that most of us have the equipment to verify and then correct the kind of deviations that get talked about.

Agreed. The process known as lapping, and used by woodworkers on plane soles is questionable (IMHO)..

BugBear

re glass flexing..

Use 25mm float glass. Have it on a stable benchtop that is at least 4" thick and has 4 x 4 legs. If your workbench passes this, then cover it with a sheet of plastic and put an extra 25mm thickness of MDF under the glass. Better still, use a piece of melamine faced MDF as a lapping surface. That is truer than float glass, it's cheaper in thicker sizes and if you don't use a piece that is too large in area, then it won't flex.

So I have found.
Regards John