Myths & Mysteries

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Here you are Jacob, hot off PS' blog ..

Another pearl of wisdom offered was this comment: "Another thing we cannot simply dismiss is that we want to use hand methods, thick irons have longer bevels and a large amount of steel must be removed constantly".

Someone should reply "only with your sharpening method, Paul". There are alternatives such as mico secondary bevels, etc ... whatever floats your boat. Indeed, is there any difference (in honing) between a thin Stanley blade and a thick infill blade if they are either hollow ground or given a secondary bevel?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Corneel]

If Mr Sellers is reading this thread, he must have the skin of a rhinoceros by now.

In the series on planning problems alone his is stating the obvious, which to my reading of it is,
“if it’s gone wrong, change something”.

What I meant to say earlier and quote here, is that whatever else he is good at, in my view writing is not one of them.
Viewing some of his vids, I find that he writes exactly as he speaks and in his case, the spoken word does not transplant well to the page.
From a personal perspective, I find his writing style hard going. This means that I need to read what he has written two or three time to work out what he’s saying. A bit of punctuation in the right place would also help.

Whether he’s right or wrong, or a prophet without honour in his own land, we’ve all spent five pages working out the gist of it.

I think I agree with you. I just don't understand what the heck he is writing there in these two blogs about chatter. What did he do, what experiments, what circumstances, what is his conclusion? He seems to have something against thick replacement blades, but I'm still not sure what exactly he has against them.

 

[Jacob]

Here you are Jacob, hot off PS' blog ..

Yebbut that is what you get with a normal sharp plane but over worked i.e. too much force or depth of cut. Hence easily and instantly remedied as I've said. Not a problem. Is that it then, the dreaded chatter which causes so much stress and anxiety?
I'd always assumed that it was something more like Sellers' second example, and I've been wondering how people do it. It seems Sellers has been asking the same thing.

..... Indeed, is there any difference (in honing) between a thin Stanley blade and a thick infill blade if they are either hollow ground or given a secondary bevel?.....k

Yes there is. You don't need to hollow grind or apply secondary bevels to thinner blades.
You don't need to on thicker blades either if you get to grips with rounded bevel sharpening.

 

[Benchwayze]

Here you are Jacob, hot off PS' blog ..

Another pearl of wisdom offered was this comment: "Another thing we cannot simply dismiss is that we want to use hand methods, thick irons have longer bevels and a large amount of steel must be removed constantly".

Regards from Perth

Derek

Agreed...

Paul Sellers is merely stating the obvious, but does he ever consider why ALL plane irons used to be thicker? He doesn't even go there.

Paul Sellers is handwork oriented to the bone and that's fine, but if thin blades are as good, or even superior, how does he imagine our forebears managed, when only thick blades were available? Also, does he ever wonder why people who make their own wooden planes, scour flea markets for thicker irons, or buy modern, thick irons? It can't all be down to 'something they read', or were told.

Maybe thinner blades came in with metal planes, because manufacturers considered a metal plane didn't need a thicker iron. And so on...

Paul Sellers doesn't discuss things like this. If he did, I might be prepared to listen. However, all he does is pour scorn on machine users, "sorting out their router bits", while he pounds a very rough-cut dovetail joint within an inch of its life. He doesn't stop at machine workers either. He snipes at modern hand-tool users too; or at least those who like to use better quality tools. If you really listen to him, and read between the lines of his blog, you will see what I mean.

So to echo Derek's words, Paul Sellers is definitely ploughing his furrow in a big, sparsely populated field. Of course, just being in a minority doesn't mean you are wrong. However, on this occasion, it's questionable. :wink:

 

[Jacob]

Paul Sellers is merely stating the obvious, but does he ever consider why ALL plane irons used to be thicker?......

I think because thats the only way the could make them. New technology meant consistent quality thinner blades possible, leading to the Bailey design which has remained top of the pops ever since, for very good reasons.
I know thicker blades are currently fashionable , helped by the availability of powered sharpening of course.

 

[Racers]

Paul Sellers is merely stating the obvious, but does he ever consider why ALL plane irons used to be thicker?......

I think because thats the only way the could make them. New technology meant consistent quality thinner blades possible, leading to the Bailey design which has remained top of the pops ever since, for very good reasons.
I know thicker blades are currently fashionable , helped by the availability of powered sharpening of course.

So laminated moulding plane irons couldn't have been made?


Pete

 

[Jacob]

Paul Sellers is merely stating the obvious, but does he ever consider why ALL plane irons used to be thicker?......

I think because thats the only way the could make them. New technology meant consistent quality thinner blades possible, leading to the Bailey design which has remained top of the pops ever since, for very good reasons.
I know thicker blades are currently fashionable , helped by the availability of powered sharpening of course.

So laminated moulding plane irons couldn't have been made?


Pete

They are fairly thick aren't they? Thicker than a Stanley blade at any rate.
They could make anything (more or less) but at a price. Laminated and hand forged must have cost a bomb in relative terms.

 

[woodbrains]

Hey Jacob,

If chatter is a myth, then why did you sing the praises of Clifton cap irons when you finally took the hint that better cap irons give better results, (by reducing chatter, what else?) and fitted one? You even stated that they are so good, it makes your BU smother redundant! Contradictory or just a poor memory. Paul Sellers is still a poor source of info, you would be better embracing the wealth of knowledge here; his barrow probably still has a square wheel!

Mike.

"chatter" didn't come into it. I don't get chatter except in Derek's terms of amateur lungeing, when I've forgotten to set things up etc. Loose workpiece being the most likely cause.
I keep asking for photos but non are forthcoming.

So what advantage did the cap iron impart. Did it cut the wood smoother? We call that reduction in chatter. Did the cutting edge last longer? Reducing chatter makes the edge wear less quickly. Did the plane move across the surface more positively? Yes, you've guessed less chatter.

Or was it just some sort of magic, that improved your plane by fitting a Clifton cap iron? Do you really prefer to beleive in the mythical cap iron effect, rather than just admit that chatter is real. The masses here and elsewhere know what they are talking about and finding one like minded buffoon agreeing with you on you tube, proves absolutely nothing. There are people who still believe the world is flat; you could find those on you tube too, I suspect, but it doesn't make it true.

Photographic evidence of chatter has been shown you. Now put up or shut up; what, other than reduction in chatter, is responsible for a Clifton cap iron improving your plane. With evidence please.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Hey Jacob,

If chatter is a myth, then why did you sing the praises of Clifton cap irons when you finally took the hint that better cap irons give better results, (by reducing chatter, what else?) and fitted one? You even stated that they are so good, it makes your BU smother redundant! Contradictory or just a poor memory. Paul Sellers is still a poor source of info, you would be better embracing the wealth of knowledge here; his barrow probably still has a square wheel!

Mike.

"chatter" didn't come into it. I don't get chatter except in Derek's terms of amateur lungeing, when I've forgotten to set things up etc. Loose workpiece being the most likely cause.
I keep asking for photos but non are forthcoming.

So what advantage did the cap iron impart. Did it cut the wood smoother? We call that reduction in chatter. Did the cutting edge last longer? Reducing chatter makes the edge wear less quickly. Did the plane move across the surface more positively? Yes, you've guessed less chatter.

Or was it just some sort of magic, that improved your plane by fitting a Clifton cap iron? Do you really prefer to beleive in the mythical cap iron effect, rather than just admit that chatter is real. The masses here and elsewhere know what they are talking about and finding one like minded buffoon agreeing with you on you tube, proves absolutely nothing. There are people who still believe the world is flat; you could find those on you tube too, I suspect, but it doesn't make it true.

Photographic evidence of chatter has been shown you. Now put up or shut up; what, other than reduction in chatter, is responsible for a Clifton cap iron improving your plane. With evidence please.

Mike.

This is childish.

 

[woodbrains]

Jacob,

You still haven't answered the question! What sort of magic does the cap iron bestow to prevent tear out? Explain it, go on. Because I'll tell you this, when the answer is inevitably, chatter can cause tearout and reducing chatter reduces tearout, you just get insulting to avoid the inevitable. If you were worth the effort, I would explain why chatter is a physical property inherent in everything, and denying its existance is like denying the earth goes around the sun. It is just foolish and banging on about it will never make it true.

Mike.

 

[GazPal]

Way too much focus on criticising others instead of relaying information concerning the various schools of thought regarding the topic at hand. Most craftsmen teach the methods they utilise and find works best for them through experience. Paul Sellers is no different from many of the craftsmen I know and in all honesty, I teach my methods and practices and nobody else's whenever someone comes to my workshop to learn and they work to my method or not at all. Zimples

More emphasis needs to be placed upon adequate practise in tool preparation and use, plus materials manipulation rather than arguing the toss over how blade chatter can be identified and/or defined, then resolved using the latest snake oil remedy. In general, if a blade chatters/skips across a surface you need to re-assess tool set-up, edge sharpness and method. One should be capable of making the necessary adjustments on the fly and - should this approach prove impractical using the materials at hand - craft experience doesn't yet necessarily match materials choice.

Views will always vary, but seldom justify personal attacks and insults due to such variances. #-o

Matching the relationship between cap and cutting iron and throat depth to suit the purpose of the tool and materials being used isn't difficult, but is something one needs to practise in order to avoid potential problems. The correct answer is "It depends". No one method is written in stone until you've found something that suits your own technique and materials in use, but kudos to Paul Sellers, et al, for at least possessing the wherewithall to publicly place their necks on the block in the interest of educating others and encouraging increased involvement within the woodworking crafts.

 

[Corneel]

Jacob,

You still haven't answered the question! What sort of magic does the cap iron bestow to prevent tear out? Explain it, go on. Because I'll tell you this, when the answer is inevitably, chatter can cause tearout and reducing chatter reduces tearout, you just get insulting to avoid the inevitable. If you were worth the effort, I would explain why chatter is a physical property inherent in everything, and denying its existance is like denying the earth goes around the sun. It is just foolish and banging on about it will never make it true.

Mike.

Mike,

I'm afraid you are wrong about chatter causing tearout. And I can proof that in two directions.

1. Unlike Jacob I have had my fair share of chatter. Especially on the start of a cut. Now I know it is mostly a technique thing and can easily be avoided without droppin money on the problem. But a thicker blade or thicker capiron does indeed help against chatter when you are yet not proficient enough. But having seen all that chatter, I've never seen it accompanied by tearout! And when I see tearout, I don't see the typical chatter lines. Watch those pictures on Paul Sllers blog. The first one is chatter without tearout. The last one is tearout without chatter.

2. You can do a little experiment yourself. The working limit of the capiron against tearout is rather small. At 0.5 mm you won't see much improvement. At 0.2 mm you suddenly can plane everything without tearout. The change is rather dramatic and has to be seen to believe it. Now, at 0.5mm the plane iron is still very well supported by the capiron, but it seemingly doesn't help agaainst tearout.

The effect of the capiron against tearout is not in limiting chatter. It is about the caprion pushing the woodshaving back into the surface so it can be cut instead of torn apart.
Tear out happens when the wedging force of the blade is higher then the natural bond between the woodfibers and can only be mittigated when somehow the wedging force is lessened (steeper pitch, thin shaving) or when the wood is better supported (very very tight mouth, close set capiron).

 

[Noel]

As mentioned above, way too many personal attacks and insults. It is childish and immature. If you don't like somebody's methods and presentation by all means say so if you really have to but try, it's not too hard, to do it in a reasoned and adult fashion rather than calling people plonkers and buffoons and other insults be they direct or indirect. And 2 or 3 in particular should try to be a little less boring , pity it's not against forum rules

On a personal note: I'm not familiar with Paul Sellers or his work but impressive CV: http://paulsellers.com/biography/

 

[Benchwayze]

Noel,

Generally speaking, CV's can contain a lot of baloney.
May I suggest you watch the video on gluing up a benchtop, listen to his advice, then think again, when you read the CV.
HTH

 

[Jacob]

Anyway - just to annoy people even more; I've bought the book!
Expensive. Looks good but a bit over produced - lots of computer graphics and clever layout with too much white space. I'll report on it in due course.
I also recently bought the Hamlyn Book of Woodworking which is cheap - you can get it for £1 or so second hand. It's a similar size and quality of production, but is absolute tat and not worth £1.
I buy a lot of books on the off-chance, often following recommendations on here. Almost everything will turn up sooner or later, and cheap.

 

[Noel]

Noel,

Generally speaking, CV's can contain a lot of baloney.
May I suggest you watch the video on gluing up a benchtop, listen to his advice, then think again, when you read the CV.
HTH

John, maybe on thin ice with that statement, or at least the inference? So the man is essentially telling lies in your opinion? Hmmm.....

Watched the video a few days ago, maybe not the way I'd do it on a bench but I've done long length-wise glue-ups with slightly banana shaped softwood and it's not caused any problems providing there's plenty of gluing area. I think there's always been an issue for some people on here that if something is not done exactly, to the letter, as many perceive it should be done then it can't be right.

I think the CV is impressive, but hey, that's my opinion, however misguided some think. Perhaps they display any old tat in Pennsylvania Avenue, who knows and if people want to pay large amounts of dollars for his rocking chairs, well he's got to be doing something right.

Edit- Jacob, I've the Hamlyn book somewhere, it's not a bad introduction to WW.

 

[Benchwayze]

Fair enough comment on the thin ice, but it's nothing new to me Noel. I'm still here, and I can swim if it breaks.

There's only one way to do most things and that's the proper way. if I don't know the proper way I'll shut up, and find out.

But sitting astride a flexing piece of 3 x 2, whilst planing it to a jointing surface? Then holding the pieces together with the hands, and saying. words to the effect... 'That's fine. Once it's glued it'll never move again.' :roll:
That's like saying glue will fill up the voids in a badly cut M&T.

Come on Noel, who are we kidding here? Wood is wood. It takes up and loses moisture and it moves. Badly trued joints are the first things to go. Even an old duffer like me knows that. So surely a sage, experienced woodworker knows it too?
I give up.

 

[Noel]

Fair enough comment on the thin ice, but it's nothing new to me Noel. I'm still here, and I can swim if it breaks.

There's only one way to do most things and that's the proper way. if I don't know the proper way I'll shut up, and find out.

But sitting astride a flexing piece of 3 x 2, whilst planing it to a jointing surface? Then holding the pieces together with the hands, and saying. words to the effect... 'That's fine. Once it's glued it'll never move again.' :roll:
That's like saying glue will fill up the voids in a badly cut M&T.

Come on Noel, who are we kidding here? Wood is wood. It takes up and loses moisture and it moves. Badly trued joints are the first things to go. Even an old duffer like me knows that. So surely a sage, experienced woodworker knows it too?
I give up.

You may be able to swim but the weight of enormous legal fees could sink you....

Post on his blog John, make him aware of your concerns and see what he says. Discuss it with the man himself. http://paulsellers.com/paul-sellers-blog/

 

[Benchwayze]

Fair enough comment on the thin ice, but it's nothing new to me Noel. I'm still here, and I can swim if it breaks.

There's only one way to do most things and that's the proper way. if I don't know the proper way I'll shut up, and find out.

But sitting astride a flexing piece of 3 x 2, whilst planing it to a jointing surface? Then holding the pieces together with the hands, and saying. words to the effect... 'That's fine. Once it's glued it'll never move again.' :roll:
That's like saying glue will fill up the voids in a badly cut M&T.

Come on Noel, who are we kidding here? Wood is wood. It takes up and loses moisture and it moves. Badly trued joints are the first things to go. Even an old duffer like me knows that. So surely a sage, experienced woodworker knows it too?
I give up.

You may be able to swim but the weight of enormous legal fees could sink you....

Post on his blog John, make him aware of your concerns and see what he says. Discuss it with the man himself. http://paulsellers.com/paul-sellers-blog/

As it happens I have expressed concerns to him. All I get is a reaffirmation that his way is the best. No consideration of the concerns. As others have remarked, his way is THE way. I won't waste any more time worrying over it and by default, no concerns over lawyers. I am entitled to an opinion, and to express it. I would never say HIS CV is baloney, but I've seen plenty of them in my time that were, to say the least, a bit fuzzy round the edges; and I dare say, so have you.
J

 

[GazPal]

So much depends upon who's proper method you choose to utiise :wink: