Quangsheng No 4

[bugbear]

Yes I have. It's an Acorn No4. Had to back bevel as the face of the blade has deep machine marks but there is nothing special about the plane itself. It works better than the QS4 on very tricky grain (some odds and ends of offcuts) but I haven't really needed it for what I do.

I thought you used it a sycamore table?

It's somehow less convenient to use - half scrape half plane - and is a bit unpredictable.
Strangely, although it needs sharpening at intervals, it does less well immediately after a sharpening, as though the edge has to be run in a bit.
I've got a theory about why this happens but would need to see it work under a microscope to prove it!

Always interested in theories - theorise away! You never know, someone else might have knowledge to confirm/deny your theory.

Maybe a QS4 with a back bevel would be even better. Hmm, could be the next step?

That's what I was asking about!

I suppose I should have said "have you tried a back bevel on the QS", but I thought since the QS was the subject of the thread that is was obvious, especially since you've posted about possibly buying a spare blade for the QS explicitly for back bevelling.

BUgBear

 

[mr grimsdale]

my theory is that freshly sharpened back bevel steep EP angle starts life as a cutting edge, which will tend to lift the surface in front and hence cause tear out. But it rapidly wears in to become more rasp like which will tend to drag the material from the surface rather than cut and lift it. Under the microscope all sharp edges are rough and jagged (given high enough magnification), it's just a question of how the jaggedy bits are distributed.

 

[bugbear]

my theory is that freshly sharpened back bevel steep EP angle starts life as a cutting edge, which will tend to lift the surface in front and hence cause tear out. But it rapidly wears in to become more rasp like which will tend to drag the material from the surface rather than cut and lift it. Under the microscope all sharp edges are rough and jagged (given high enough magnification), it's just a question of how the jaggedy bits are distributed.

I can just about visualise a cutting edge becoming more notchy with wear (like a toothed blade). In this case the same wear that causes the notchiness would surely also tend to make the teeth rather blunt.

But I'm struggling to see how wear would make a shape as complex as a rasp.

Do you still get shavings or dust at this later stage?

BugBear

 

[big soft moose]

Maybe a QS4 with a back bevel would be even better. Hmm, could be the next step?

there you go , in no time you'll have loads of them, then you'll start buy cliftons and LNs , making rosewood cabinets to keep them in, and calling them individually by name as you tuck them in for the night and read them a bedtime story

so much for "its just one, i know what i'm doing"

he thought he could handle it , but buying quality planes can really **** you up

 

[mr grimsdale]

my theory is that freshly sharpened back bevel steep EP angle starts life as a cutting edge, which will tend to lift the surface in front and hence cause tear out. But it rapidly wears in to become more rasp like which will tend to drag the material from the surface rather than cut and lift it. Under the microscope all sharp edges are rough and jagged (given high enough magnification), it's just a question of how the jaggedy bits are distributed.

I can just about visualise a cutting edge becoming more notchy with wear (like a toothed blade). In this case the same wear that causes the notchiness would surely also tend to make the teeth rather blunt.

But I'm struggling to see how wear would make a shape as complex as a rasp.

Do you still get shavings or dust at this later stage?

BugBear

All cutting edges are notchy (under a microscope). I'm suggesting that the effective edge gets pushed back with use, so that it lifts less but still shears the material in more of a scrape. Which is how it looks with the shavings come to think - instead of lifting and sliding up the blade they get rolled away in front to some extent.
I've just remembered having this same conversation some time back with respect to machine planes - they tear out more when freshly sharpened and improve after a bit of a run in.

 

[bugbear]

All cutting edges are notchy (under a microscope).

Yes, obviously.

I'm suggesting that the effective edge gets pushed back with use, so that it lifts less but still shears the material in more of a scrape.

Ah - so you just mean that the edge gets pushed back, steepening the EP?

Plausible, but I've never heard the phenomon reported - there are lots of high EP planes out there, so this ought to be more common, if you're right.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

I've just remembered having this same conversation some time back with respect to machine planes - they tear out more when freshly sharpened and improve after a bit of a run in.

That's very odd - unless "freshly sharpened" was ragged as hell with a wire edge, in which case I suppose wear might improve it. Seems an extreme case though.

BugBear

 

[mr grimsdale]

I've just remembered having this same conversation some time back with respect to machine planes - they tear out more when freshly sharpened and improve after a bit of a run in.

That's very odd - unless "freshly sharpened" was ragged as hell with a wire edge, in which case I suppose wear might improve it. Seems an extreme case though.

BugBear

No this has been commented on before, by others too. I got my blades properly done in the hopes of reducing tear out some years back and found it was worse. Perhaps, as you say, running in amounts to a higher EP.

 

[mr grimsdale]

.. calling them individually by name as you tuck them in for the night and read them a bedtime story....

Good idea.
I'm calling my QS4 作者 (quanshae). Same name as this lass:

My recently acquired american Stanley No 7 I'm calling "Thelma". I'm now looking for a Louise.

Made in england Record No 4 , er, hmm, Margaret?

PS
5 1/2 is Jack, so 5 could be Jill?

 

[mr grimsdale]

More QS4 fiddling here if anybody is interested.
Put old record blade in for a trial.

 

[ByronBlack]

More QS4 fiddling here if anybody is interested.
Put old record blade in for a trial.

Out of interest, what woods have you bee using this on? With the thin blade - would that cope as well as the thicker blade on more tricker/harder woods?

 

[mr grimsdale]

More QS4 fiddling here if anybody is interested.
Put old record blade in for a trial.

Out of interest, what woods have you bee using this on? With the thin blade - would that cope as well as the thicker blade on more tricker/harder woods?

Tricky wood isn't necessarily hard.
I've been planing some soft sapele and mahogany which tears out very easily where the grain reverses. I've also been doing some sycamore which is very variable but very hard in small knotty areas. And various off cuts lying about in the workshop including oak and ash.

 

[Vann]

Put old record blade in for a trial.

With Record or Quangsheng cap-iron?

Cheers, Vann.

 

[mr grimsdale]

Put old record blade in for a trial.

With Record or Quangsheng cap-iron?

Cheers, Vann.

Stanley (it wasn't Record I just looked again).
Either way it'd only fit if I opened the adjuster aperture as the frog has to go surprisingly far forwards (and the blade back), and I didn't want to modify the new QS.
Couldn't do the converse (put QS blade in Record), as you'd have to open the mouth quite a bit and I didn't want to do that either.

 

[ByronBlack]

So overall then Grim - are you saying that if you had a choice of planes to buy - you would still go for an old stanley/record over the QS as they are a lot cheaper and I gather you don't feel the performance of the QS is that much better (just more predictable?)

 

[mr grimsdale]

So overall then Grim - are you saying that if you had a choice of planes to buy - you would still go for an old stanley/record over the QS as they are a lot cheaper and I gather you don't feel the performance of the QS is that much better (just more predictable?)

I do like my collection of cheapo Stanleys/Records. Recently added a No5 which is really handy.
But I wanted to have more hands-on with a posher plane and QS seems to be as good as LN but at 1/3rd the price, and the No4 seems to be the most useful addition i.e. one good smoother, everything else done with Record/Stanley.

So I've got an excellent Stanley (USA) no 7 from ebay for £31. What on earth would be the point of a LN 7 at £350? Plus it'd weigh a ton I guess.

 

[ByronBlack]

Well, I think I'm convinced - I might get one. I've decided to get a No.6 for my jointing requirements, but can't decide between a No.4 or a No.3 for a smoother..

 

[wizer]

Wouldn't you just buy a 5 for smoothing? Much nicer in the hand and can be used on a shooting board if you so wish.

 

[ByronBlack]

Wouldn't you just buy a 5 for smoothing? Much nicer in the hand and can be used on a shooting board if you so wish.

I thought about the 5, but I intend to use the 6 as the 'go-to' plane and for shooting - I used to use my no.7 for all that and didn't miss the 5 - I think a 5 might be too large for general smoothing and a I prefer the longer sole of the 6 for jointing.

 

[wizer]

Courses and Horses. I fine any plane smaller than a 5 to be too small to be comfortable. Have you ever owned or used the Veritas LAS?