Hand Plane setup, sharpening & how to plane properly - in person course

[Jacob]

New Years eve Celebrity Sewing Bee is over. Few! Very jolly! I fancied her done up as a pig in blankets! Very clever.

I'm in the keep your hands off your frog camp. Just get it lined up dead with the mouth so that the blade gets max support.
Just having a look in Moxon to see what he says about cap irons but they don't get a mention. Were they invented back then 1700 ish?
There's lots of other amazingly detailed explanations in there, as with Nicholson, well worth rummaging through. No mention of curly shavings anywhere!
Could do with a modern typeset version with a proper index. He refers to paring chisels also as "pairing" chisels to help jointing boards i.e. pairing them together.
No mention of Ttree's "reference" surfaces, nor in any other woodwork book I've ever read. I think there's a very simple explanation for this, which is that a lot of woodwork is done by "sighting" rather than reference to flat surfaces, long straightedges, or other precision gadgets which cost a bomb. Long straight edge more likely to be a chalk line anyway - just a piece of string.

 

[D_W]

You obviously haven't.
I've got it in front of me. See page 92. There are other notes about facing/shooting etc but I can't see any other comments about cap irons.
It's a very good book, get...copy D_W The Mechanic's Companion by Nicholson, Peter Book The Cheap Fast Free Post New 9780983150008 | eBay

I have a pdf reference that has more text than that about proper setup of a plane, but I've solved a problem that is supposed about clogs, so it's not perfect. From mathieson and Griffiths planes that I have, they did too. I'm away from my PC but will see if I can find the text in a day or two.

I made the comment about shavings straightening. Later, I found out the professors in Japan made a reference for hand planes and noticed they talked about shavings shortening. I never read this stuff in Nicholson. I figured it out in isolation and people who like to read before trying kept pointing me to Nicholson.

In the end, I learned one thing about jack planing efficiency from Nicholson, but you can just figure out this stuff on your own by planing a few hundred or thousand board feet of hardwoods.

 

[hennebury]

Just a little video I made some years back whilst playing with the blade relief angle,
And phots of playing around with the throat opening.

From the chipbreaker video

playing with a Supersurfacer

one of the double head supersurfacers that i rebuilt

 

[Jacob]

Just a little video I made some years back whilst playing with the blade relief angle,
And phots of playing around with the throat opening.

View attachment 125473
View attachment 125474
View attachment 125475
View attachment 125476

From the chipbreaker video
View attachment 125477
View attachment 125478
playing with a Supersurfacer

View attachment 125479



one of the double head supersurfacers that i rebuilt

What is "blade relief angle"?

 

[Jacob]

I have a pdf reference that has more text than that about proper setup of a plane, but I've solved a problem that is supposed about clogs, so it's not perfect. From mathieson and Griffiths planes that I have, they did too. I'm away from my PC but will see if I can find the text in a day or two.

I wouldn't waste your time searching Nicholson he wrote 20 or more books and I doubt he has anything else to say about cap irons beyond the brief note in "Mechanics Companion" lets face it there is nothing much more to say.
What was the clogs problem? Can't say I've ever had it, or are you talking about about footwear? Does Nicholson mention clogs?

.......
In the end, I learned one thing about jack planing efficiency from Nicholson, but you can just figure out this stuff on your own by planing a few hundred or thousand board feet of hardwoods.

What did you make with this few thousand board feet? I hope it wasn't just shavings. The Pennsylvania shavings mountain?
Seems to be an unhealthy interest in shavings amongst the enthusiasts! Something macho about the ones which pop out stiff and vertically, as compared to the thin short and curlies? I'm beginning to see them in a new light, shavings as a special interest area in their own right. I'm going to get my vernier callipers out.

 

[Jacob]

OK I got "blade relief angle" I googled it and came up with this great pudding of superfluous information Rob Cosman | Secrets of Sharpening | Bevel Angles and Blade Geometry
The last sentence is interesting:
Over time as you keep sharpening your blade you will continually reduce this clearance angle, finally reaching the point when either the blade wont bite into the wood or your secondary bevel is so large that its taking you too long to sharpen. When this happens, it is time to go to the grinder and re-establish your 25 degree primary bevel and start the process all over again.
This is what beginners and school kids do.
It doesn't happen under the rounded bevel freehand traditional method as shown by Sellers and others and means you can manage without a grinder altogether - there is no progressive change if you freehand a little and often.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I wonder if the OP has found this thread useful in demystifying set up, sharpening and use of hand planes?

 

[Peter Sefton]

OK I got "blade relief angle" I googled it and came up with this great pudding of superfluous information Rob Cosman | Secrets of Sharpening | Bevel Angles and Blade Geometry

It doesn't happen under the rounded bevel freehand traditional method as shown by Sellers and others and means you can manage without a grinder altogether - there is no progressive change if you freehand a little and often.

Just not true I am afraid, I had a student on one of my short courses who had a sharp plane blade which had been sharpened using the rounded bevel method after watching your guru Jacob.

It would not plane as the rounded bevel was rubbing in the timbers surface as there was no clearance angle.

 

[Jacob]

Just not true I am afraid, I had a student on one of my short courses who had a sharp plane blade which had been sharpened using the rounded bevel method after watching your guru Jacob.

It would not plane as the rounded bevel was rubbing in the timbers surface as there was no clearance angle.

Well he wasn't doing it properly. You still have to use your brain a bit.
You hit the stone at 30º and advance it vigorously forwards dipping slightly as you go lowering the angle, and repeat. "Vigorously" is the operative word and why it is so fast.
At no point does the blade angle exceed 30º.
Rounding over is what kids do. What competent freehand sharpeners do could be called 'rounding under' but who needs another confusing technical term!
It's very simple and easy.

I wonder if the OP has found this thread useful in demystifying set up, sharpening and use of hand planes?  

I doubt it! I'm losing the will to live myself!
Interesting diversion into Nicholson and Moxon - they really are interesting and packed with information. Should keep D_W busy and out of harms way while he frantically searches for more illumination on cap iron science!
Nicholson has 28 titles apparently, I'd love to collect them but must desist.

 

[bp122]

I suspect the OP hasn't even seen my offer after he was put off by the rest of the stuff. He probably left the forum and sold his tools and taken up fishing, or golf!

Or has flown to Australia to watch the remaining Ashes tests!

 

[GerryT]

Just not true I am afraid, I had a student on one of my short courses who had a sharp plane blade which had been sharpened using the rounded bevel method after watching your guru Jacob.

It would not plane as the rounded bevel was rubbing in the timbers surface as there was no clearance angle.

I don’t doubt your word here Peter but it’s never been my experience with so called rounded bevels.
Nor I would imagine has it been Paul Sellers experience either, who I suspect you refer to as “Jacob’s guru”.
For the bevel to rub on the timber as you describe then surely the bevel would have to be truly rounded to a very large degree, something that by sharpening freehand following “Seller’s“ method you shouldn’t get.
I would agree that if it was heavily rounded leaving no clearance then maybe you would get the effect you describe but it shouldn’t be heavily “rounded“ in the first place.
Rounded bevel is the wrong term anyway as it gives the impression that it’s truly rounded which it isn’t .

IMHO it shouldn’t be referred to as Seller‘s method either as it has been done from time immemorial long before Sellers appeared.

I sharpen irons with all sorts of methods but its hard to beat the speed of freehand and we all know that the bevel doesn’t need to be surgically flat to work properly.

Again we have a simple initial thread opening question and it’s become overgrown with things totally peripheral to the original poster.
Is any surprise that people give up trying working with wood because the impression is given that sharpening is so complex .

 

[Jacob]

....
Nor I would imagine has it been Paul Sellers experience either, who I suspect you refer to as “Jacob’s guru”.

Not my guru - the "Sellers method" was what we learned at school when Sellers was just a little boy. He gets the credit because he produced a very clear video, though Peter has obviously not payed much attention to it!
Basically it's what everybody did everywhere, and mostly still do.

.......
Is any surprise that people give up trying working with wood because the impression is given that sharpening is so complex .

They even worry about what their shavings look like and start measuring them with vernier callipers!

PS calling it "the rounded bevel method" is misleading - the slightly rounded bevel is just an incidental by product and not the object of the exercise - which is to get the job done quickly and easily.

 

[Adam W.]

@GerryT Yes, but for some it's like a religion and full of dogma.

 

[D_W]

I wonder if the OP has found this thread useful in demystifying set up, sharpening and use of hand planes?

Come on now, this is the internet. You're imposing standards that are way too high.

 

[D_W]

Just not true I am afraid, I had a student on one of my short courses who had a sharp plane blade which had been sharpened using the rounded bevel method after watching your guru Jacob.

It would not plane as the rounded bevel was rubbing in the timbers surface as there was no clearance angle.

Peter - people send me tools to fix or diagnose, and up to this point, every one that's had a rounded bevel was lacking sharpness except one, and the one that was fine in sharpness was lacking clearance.

It's certainly possible to sharpen the way paul teaches, but most of his "students" don't execute it very well as I think they quick the grind part and then chase the bevel steeper when finishing to solve not grinding enough.

Hurrying through sharpening to limit clearance (even if an iron cuts) is dippy - it cuts the edge life interval down to a fraction.

 

[D_W]

I wouldn't waste your time searching Nicholson he wrote 20 or more books and I doubt he has anything else to say about cap irons beyond the brief note in "Mechanics Companion" lets face it there is nothing much more to say.

You're in luck, as I'm on holiday and I don't have much at hand. Nicholson had comments about the cap iron and profiling it to match the iron, which has people dogearing their caps and I've seen no reason to do that. So it's not as if I agree with everything he says. The cap should match the plane sole profile, not the iron (so gutter planes would have a cap tracking the gutter, etc.). He may have felt there was a conceptual reason to profile the cap on a flat sole plane, but there isn't one in practice.

What was the clogs problem? Can't say I've ever had it, or are you talking about about footwear? Does Nicholson mention clogs?

Nicholson asserted that the plane iron should have the edges nipped so that the full width isn't cutting because there will be a problem with shavings clogging at the outside of the wedge fingers. However, that's not the case - it took me 1 plane as a maker to not have that problem. I've not actually ever made a double iron plane that clogged at the wedge fingers, but since Nicholson wrote it, it's a myth that persists and an american planemaker (larry williams) repeated it and other mythology about double iron planes. People are short on doing and long on reading, and will believe anything they read. None of the good English planes that I bought to learn the design of double iron planes had any issues with clogging at the wedge fingers - if it was a problem in Nicholson's time, it was solved by 1820.

I hope it wasn't just shavings. The Pennsylvania shavings mountain?
Seems to be an unhealthy interest in shavings amongst the enthusiasts! Something macho about the ones which pop out stiff and vertically, as compared to the thin short and curlies? I'm beginning to see them in a new light, shavings as a special interest area in their own right. I'm going to get my vernier callipers out.

You do make up stories that fit what you want, Jacob. But, this goes along well with the fact that we've seen you post no neat work. I've posted a good bit of mine - not all of it is neat, some of it is. I think i'll wait for you to post lots of neat woodworking before I start moving things around in the house to take pictures of everything.

The only person on this forum who has been in my shop is raffo - he can give you an idea of whether or not any of the stuff I say occurs in person or if I'm just making it up.

 

[D_W]

OK, I didn't have the mechanick's friend PDF -it is public domain here

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=_XYOAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PA92&hl=en

To prevent the iron from tearing the wood to cross grained stuff , a cover is used with a reversed basil , ( Pl . 12. Fig . 4. ) and fastened by means of a screw , the thin part of which slides in a longitudinal slit in the iron , and the head is taken out by a large hole near

the upper
end of it . The lower edge of the cover is so formed , as to be concentric or parallel to the cutting edge of the iron , and fixed at a small distance above it , and to coincide entirely with the steel face . The basil of the cover must be rounded , and not flat , as that of the iron is . The distance between the cutting edge of the iron , and the edge of the cover , depends altogether on the nature of the stuff . If the stuff is free , the edge of the cover may be set at a considerable distance , because the difficulty of pushing the plane forward becomes greater , as the edge of the cover is nearer the edge of the iron , and the contrary when more remote .

The convexity of the edge of the iron depends on the texture of the stuff , whether it is free , cross grained , hard or knotty . If the stuff is free , it is evident that a considerable projection may be allowed , as a thicker shaving may be taken : the extreme edges of the iron must never enter the wood , as this not only retards the progress of working , but chokes and prevents the regular dis . charge of the shavings at the orifice of the plane .

The last line is partially false. If the corners enter the wood below the cut line, they do increase the amount of work since you're tearing wood instead of cutting it along the side of the iron - but the comment about planes clogging is false.

At this point, you may be ready to make up fables about someone saying nicholson talked about flat shavings, but I've never seen anyone suggest that other than you. And you suggested someone else said it. A japanese paper by kato and kawai that wasn't translated until much later than the machine video shown talked about shavings being shorter when the cap iron is working well - that was their suggestion on setting a plane properly. Their words, not mine - it wasn't provided with the original cap iron stuff because nobody had translated it. The video and numerical figures and cap iron angles are intended for a planing machine, not for a hand plane used by a person. The cap iron should be rounded for someone working by hand, which is exactly what nicholson says (except I had never read nicholson - I did what's a bridge too far for many - I set up a few cap irons to figure out what works best, and then learned more along the way making planes - and making note of which vintage cap irons work best (least additional effort planing vs. tearout control - I don't expect anyone else to do that.

I made the comment that a shaving is worked when the cap iron is set right (on my own, before I ever saw anything of nicholson), and that if the shaving is wrinkled like an accordion, the cap iron is set too close. That's from my own work. I read nothing to learn to use the cap iron, just resolved that the planes that I mentioned earlier were failures if one is going to work wood entirely by hand. If you can chunk wood and get away with it for house work, then that's fine, but I'm hoping to work more to a standard like this for typical planed work.





without resorting to sanding to remove tearout. You should just be able to plane surfaces that clean as a matter of routine work, whether the wood is quartered beech or ideal pine (I don't work much with softwoods). If I made planes like the last picture and couldn't plane the surfaces of them to a finish (and had to sand or something), it would be a pretty poor statement.

As to whether the shavings tell you anything, if they are not clear, they tell you that there is tearout. Chunked short shavings should be left behind after heavy jack work. It's more work to do this stuff poorly than it is to do it neatly.

You are among the folks on here who do a whole lot less by hand than you say - it's impossible to not notice the volume of work that you get done is poor if any hack and slash with planes and saws is OK. In your own posts on the hand tool forum, you admitted to relying almost entirely on machines for the last three decades.

 

[Jacob]

Peter - people send me tools to fix or diagnose, and up to this point, every one that's had a rounded bevel was lacking sharpness except one, and the one that was fine in sharpness was lacking clearance.

People who send you tools to fix or diagnose, obviously know FA about tools, so finding them faulty should be no surprise. Or to put it another way - if their tools were working well they wouldn't be sending them to you to remedy. Hope that helps

It's certainly possible to sharpen the way paul teaches, but most of his "students" don't execute it very well as I think they quick the grind part and then chase the bevel steeper when finishing to solve not grinding enough.

How would you know? Have you spoken to any of them?

Hurrying through sharpening to limit clearance (even if an iron cuts) is dippy - it cuts the edge life interval down to a fraction.

What does this mean? No don't answer that!

 

[Jacob]

.....

You are among the folks on here who do a whole lot less by hand than you say - it's impossible to not notice the volume of work that you get done is poor if any hack and slash with planes and saws is OK.

How would you know?

In your own posts on the hand tool forum, you admitted to relying almost entirely on machines for the last three decades.

No I did not.
I 'admitted' to doing things entirely by hand for a few years at first. Not entirely true I had a band saw and later a little router. You have stupidly interpreted this as my "only" using machines after that.

The nicholson section was a little bit longer than you suggested, huh?

Oh yes one short paragraph, not sentence. I described it as "a brief note".
Enough of this long winded dismal nonsense you are on ignore again. Tedious, I've got more interesting things to do.

 

[D_W]

People who send you tools to fix or diagnose, obviously know FA about tools, so finding them faulty should be no surprise. Or to put it another way - if their tools were working well they wouldn't be sending them to you to remedy. Hope that helpsHow would you know? Have you spoken to any of them?What does this mean? No don't answer that!

It's not the iron that they're sending the tools to me for, it's the fit of the wedge or need to make a new wedge, or in some cases, the iron itself (later sheffield) is too low quality to be usable and they want the iron rehardened.

As far as how I would know what people are doing, I can see what they've done sharpening the irons - the whole bevel is honed but it's chased steep at the tip to try to finish it, and lack of clearance keeps the iron from cutting, just like peter described.

I think you're going to keep turning the handle here until you get what you want out of this, but I'm still waiting for your pictures of neat work.

Remember when I got an out of use jointer from the UK a couple of years ago, set it up in 20 minutes and fitted everything and you called it confusing? It's probably not been used in 100 years and suffered little planing tropical woods - I wonder if it just worked like that by chance when set up properly and quickly, or I just "applied too much dogma" and the parts on it were never intended to work that way.

The latter seems unlikely. I'm sure I'm not the only person waiting for you to show actual work done entirely by hand and neatly - like something someone learning to plane might want to know.

Planing properly is kind of like shooting a bow and arrow from the point. You can talk at length about things you might reference or see, but the actual act is simple. Everything that I mention is simple and the planing that follows is about as simple as shooting a bow and arrow well just shooting from the point. It's generally you or someone else who claims you have a simple (but generally low capability) set of instructions for someone. And if they're going to use mostly power tools and only plane a little, that's fine. If they're looking to use planes a lot, they're going to find your descriptions lacking, just as they'll find descriptions lacking from anyone wanting to dictate method instead of results.

The nicholson section was a little bit longer than you suggested, huh?