Low VS standard angle planes

[Jacob]

........
It is for this reason that I have switched almost entirely to BD planes, and seeing as I made my block plane, I put a 32˚ bed angle on it. Voila! A block plane with as low an angle as is really possible on a BU plane!

Fraser

Except it's not a good block plane. A block plane needs to be bevel up in order to make it compact and one handleable. This seems to be their only raison d'etre and the reason why they have been popular and used continuously since first introduced. They never went out of fashion like the larger and somewhat pointless BU planes (Stanley 62, were there others?).

PS Finally dumped (ebay) my LV la smoother as I couldn't see the point of such an expensive plane, so I don't have any BU planes except Stanley 220, 110, block planes.

 

[Duncumb.fc]

........
It is for this reason that I have switched almost entirely to BD planes, and seeing as I made my block plane, I put a 32˚ bed angle on it. Voila! A block plane with as low an angle as is really possible on a BU plane!

Fraser

Except it's not a good block plane. A block plane needs to be bevel up in order to make it compact and one handleable. This seems to be their only raison d'etre and the reason why they have been popular and used continuously since first introduced. They never went out of fashion like the larger and somewhat pointless BU planes (Stanley 62, were there others?).

I beg to differ, my plane is the same size as my Stanley 18 1/2 and I use it one handed almost daily... Pictures can be found here

Fraser

 

[Jacob]

.....
I beg to differ, my plane is the same size as my Stanley 18 1/2 and I use it one handed almost daily... Pictures can be found here

Fraser

It's not the size it's the sticking out blade. Obviously you can use any plane one handed, with varying degrees of difficulty, but the familiar low angle stanley 220 and similar all feature that rounded top end/handle thing, designed for comfortable one handed use, made possible by the low angle.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

One interesting thing to add to the conversation is that of blade wear.
As you use a plane, the lower face of the iron tends to be the one that wears (the one lowermost in the plane)
This means that on a BD plane, the wear happens on the bevel side, meaning that a quick sharpen will get rid of any wear

How interesting. I was wondering whether quite the reverse might be true as an advantage of bevel up; I thought that as the shaving is lifted off over the upper surface of the blade it might cause most wear there, But I am quite happy to be wrong, since I only have one bevel up plane and erm, a few bevel down ones.

 

[Corneel]

i am wondering too. I know from the "scientific" research with microscopes and such that the wear bevel at the underside of the blade is larger then at the upper side (under and upper when seen as the plane is being used). But how much is that really a problem in reality? With a bit of finger pressure near the edge when the blade lies flat on the stone you can quickly remove a lot of wear.

This wear is caused by the spring back of the woodfibers. Most low angle planes have only 12 degrees of relief angle. So maybe in a plane with 20 degree relief angle the problem isn't half as bad? I only have one bevel up plane, a QS low angle block, and I don't find sharpening taking more trouble then on my bevel down planes. But I don't use it very often so ultimately I just don't know.

 

[Duncumb.fc]

i am wondering too. I know from the "scientific" research with microscopes and such that the wear bevel at the underside of the blade is larger then at the upper side (under and upper when seen as the plane is being used). But how much is that really a problem in reality? With a bit of finger pressure near the edge when the blade lies flat on the stone you can quickly remove a lot of wear.

This wear is caused by the spring back of the woodfibers. Most low angle planes have only 12 degrees of relief angle. So maybe in a plane with 20 degree relief angle the problem isn't half as bad? I only have one bevel up plane, a QS low angle block, and I don't find sharpening taking more trouble then on my bevel down planes. But I don't use it very often so ultimately I just don't know.

I think probably all of these things are a bit of a storm in a teacup, and actually in practice it matters very little
However, I had a look at my bevel up block plane blade, and there is definite wear, and it's definitely visible to the eye.
Whilst it's true that a bit of extra pressure can sort that problem out, of course over (a long) time you're going to end up with a double bevel iron!
I've seen people do that with chisels, and paring gouges too, and I really don't recommend it. While it's less critical on a plane iron, I would say it's a bad habit to get into...

One thing worth saying too, is that when you store your planes make sure you do one of 3 things.
1. Lay the plane on its side
2. Retract the blade completely above the sole of the plane
3. Set up a block of wood to go under the toe to lift it off the surface. I.e. the plane is at an angle and thus the extended blade is not in contact with anything.
That way, you can reduce the wear for any time other than using them!
I favour No.1 for no particular reason, just what I'm in the habit of doing.

Fraser

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

One could begin by talking of cutting angles.

If you work with interlocked grain, a high cutting angles helps greatly in reducing tear out. Achieving the high angles is easier using a BU plane - simply alter the secondary bevel on bevel face. Unless it has a high enough bed/frog, a BD plane will require two bevels - one on each side of the blade.

Low cutting/included angles are also the domain of the BU plane. Planing across the grain and end grain is best served by a low cutting angle. Few BD planes can go below common pitch. The 12 degree bed of the BU plane, along with a 25 degree bevel, create an included angle of 37 degrees.

So, in effect, for one person the bottom line is that a BU plane has a wider range than a BD plane.

But that is only a part of the story. Bear with my following convoluted explanation.

One of the advantages of planing wood with a hand plane rather than a machine is that you get to know the surface of the wood. When planing interlocked grain you feel when the plane is starting to struggle and resist cutting. You stop in mid shaving, adjust the stroke/depth of blade/direction of cut.

In my experience the difference in feedback varies in part with the centre of gravity. The further from the work surface, the lower the feedback. Conversely, the lower the centre of gravity, the greater the feedback. In part, feedback also depends on the "centre of effort". C of E is a yachting term to refer to the action of the wind on the sail - where it places it force ... low or high on the sail. Pressure at the top of the sail is different to pressure at the bottom of the sail. In a similar manner, force directed at the low end of the blade creates more stability and controlled power. For this reason, a plane with a low centre of gravity requires less effort to push than a plane with a high centre of gravity, for example, a traditional jointer versus a razee jointer ...

This is the reason I build razee woodies ... and yet I often return to the LV BU Jointer ...

Add to the equation a plane with a low centre of effort - a bevel up plane is an example of this - and you will understand their attractiveness to many. They are easy to push and easy to control.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

One could begin by talking of cutting angles.

If you work with interlocked grain, a high cutting angles helps greatly in reducing tear out. Achieving the high angles is easier using a BU plane - simply alter the secondary bevel on bevel face.

Exactly the same with a BD plane except the new bevel goes on the flat face side and you have the benefit of the chip breaker (whatever the benefit is :shock: )

Unless it has a high enough bed/frog, a BD plane will require two bevels - one on each side of the blade.

Er- so what? No problemo as far as I can see.

....... Bear with my following convoluted explanation......

Too many convoluted explanations, so little time! And they are all so heavy the new BU planes! Makes more work, like wearing lead boots - good underwater perhaps?
NB if heaviness and low centre of gravity was a virtue then it'd pay to put lead weights in a wooden plane. But nobody does that - because it's a daft idea. Everybody knows the light weight of woodies is one of the main attractions.

PS I've only got two heavy-weights now, a Stanley new SW 4 and a Clifton 4. The work equally well but the Clifton has much better adjustment. On the other hand the Stanley has much better mouth adjuster - in fact the best of all of them.

 

[Duncumb.fc]

That's an interesting input Derek, I never really understood the idea of a razee for anything other than creating more room under the blade! Of course, as Jacob mentioned, putting lead weights on the bottom of a plane would lower the centre of gravity, although not the centre of effort. The effect of this I don't know, other than that you'd lose the lovely wood on wood slippery goodness!

Personally I've used a low angle jointer identical to your picture, and I must admit that in terms of effort and finish, my 1902 No 7 was just as good... (But perhaps I'm biased!)
These days, I've switched to woodies, I find them more comfortable to use and find that they give a much better finish on the wood, which for me wipes out any idea of having a low angle plane...
Also, I've seen the idea of having multiple blades for a BU plane to give low, standard, york etc. but honestly, this scares me! I'm bad enough at keeping 1 blade sharp, let alone 3! :mrgreen:

Fraser

 

[Jacob]

I've always thought the "Razee" plane was the school plane i.e. for small hands. Where did the odd name come from?

PS the answer! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razee

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Actually, it was a common recommendation to soak woodies in linseed oil to give them more mass, so more weight (to a point) has always been understood as an advantage.

The only advantage in a light plane, as far a I can see, is if it is carried about a lot. During use, the board being planed takes all the weight, and I've not heared any complaints there. Mass, however, is a function of momentum. Since we cannot practically make planes move very quickly, making them heavier increases momentum, which is a boon when planing cranky grain, knots etc. it is obviously a matter of preference, but the majority of woodworkers prefer a plane with some weight to it.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

Actually, it was a common recommendation to soak woodies in linseed oil to give them more mass, so more weight (to a point) has always been understood as an advantage.

:lol: :lol: yes those few milligrams would make all the difference! woodbrains - the linseed is for preservation, lubrication, appearance and also strengthens the surface against abrasion

The only advantage in a light plane, as far a I can see, is if it is carried about a lot. ......

It also requires less force to move it to and fro. This means less work. Your physics is a bit confused.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Actually, it was a common recommendation to soak woodies in linseed oil to give them more mass, so more weight (to a point) has always been understood as an advantage.

:lol: :lol: yes those few milligrams would make all the difference! woodbrains - the linseed is for preservation, lubrication, appearance and also strengthens the surface against abrasion

The only advantage in a light plane, as far a I can see, is if it is carried about a lot. ......

It also requires less force to move it to and fro. This means less work. Your physics is a bit confused.

Actually, and you know this quite well, planes soaked in linseed oil get quite a bit heavier. Don't talk milligrams, the oil can replace a fair bit of the spaces in the cells where the unbound moisture content was driven out during seasoning, and wet wood is quite a bit heavier than dry, I think you'll agree. Incidentally, I did not say oiling a plane did not do those other things as well.

Momentum is the product if mass and velocity. There is only so fast you can move your arms backwards and forwards
during planing, but you can move larger masses, within the realms of the tools we use. I can push a plane double the mass of a woodie without any noticeable effect, therefore doubling the momentum. I would find it impossible to push the woodie twice as fast, for the same outcome. A woodie might weigh 1 pound, a relatively lightly cast iron plane might weigh 3 pounds. I can triple the momentum and no one could say a 3 pound plane was uncommon or excessive. I understand the physics quite well thank you.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

....... I can push a plane double the mass of a woodie without any noticeable effect, therefore doubling the momentum. ......

Only be working twice as hard. You have to pull it back as well. If you could plane in one direction only you would be a bit nearer the truth. Mass would be very noticeable if you were hand planing for longish periods. It's fairly self evident I think, and shows how all this idle theorising can cause so much confusion!

 

[woodbrains]

....... I can push a plane double the mass of a woodie without any noticeable effect, therefore doubling the momentum. ......

Only be working twice as hard. You have to pull it back as well. If you could plane in one direction only you would be a bit nearer the truth. Mass would be very noticeable if you were hand planing for longish periods. It's fairly self evident I think, and shows how all this idle theorising can cause so much confusion!

It has nothing to do with theorising, you twit, the biggest effort required in planing is overcoming the force required to lift the shaving. This is the main limiting factor of the speed we can push a plane. Mass is independent of this, so it is better to gain momentum by increasing mass than trying to push faster. Ironically, using mass to get more momentum will actually help overcome the force required to lift the shaving, so makes planing easier. Of course you have to work harder, but it is not outside the realms of human physique or the tools we have evolved with use. We are not pushing anvils! Besides, if there is not enough momentum available to lift the shaving, we have to reduce the thickness of shaving and take twice as many cuts and the work done becomes the same, except it will take twice as long.

Do I take it that you do not use iron planes or are an 8 stone weakling? Of course not, you can use any plane developed for the job as can I, you are just, as usual, being argumentative. But if you are going to plane ornery timber, I bet you will opt for something with some heft to do the job; out of experience, not theory.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

........ But if you are going to plane ornery timber, I bet you will opt for something with some heft to do the job; out of experience, not theory.

Mike.

Not so. Fastest material remover I have is a little light wooden scrubber . Next fastest is a similar but
slightly wider scrubber. This is experience, not theory. I was using one only yesterday (though Doug did more of it).
The heavier the plane, the harder the work. But steel planes are better for finer finishes, which is why they are chosen - for finer work and precision/control/adjustability etc.

 

[Dangermouse]

Don't forget friction !

 

[Jacob]

Don't forget friction !

Candle wax!!

 

[Duncumb.fc]

Don't forget friction !

Candle wax!!

Excellent... Let's all get waxy wood and then wonder why our finish doesn't stick properly.

Fraser

 

[Jacob]

Don't forget friction !

Candle wax!!

Excellent... Let's all get waxy wood and then wonder why our finish doesn't stick properly.

Fraser

If it really was an issue I suppose you could hold back on the candle wax for the last few passes of the plane, but I think it's a bit of a rumour and never actually a problem. And what about those oily old wooden planes? Only to be followed by linseed oil I suppose.