Rounding off Plane Iron Corners

[Ttrees]

Tom, as a woodworker that uses planes amongst other woodworking tools my interest in this thread was prompted because of the 'influenced shavings' descriptor. That I've had things published over the years is not relevant that I can see. I admit that I seldom watch woodworking videos on places like YouTube or wherever, so the words and filmed guidance of such names as Cosman, Sellers, and others frequently mentioned on forums don't reach me directly very much. I'm also nowadays not a big reader of woodworking articles, whether they be in print, blogs, and perhaps other formats. That I now spend little time reading or viewing such information doesn't indicate a lack of interest in me about woodworking techniques and knowledge. In my early days as a learning furniture maker I avidly read books, woodworking journals, and so on. Reading about woodworking and viewing woodworking videos by contemporary authors and presenters for the most part mainly repeats information I absorbed quite a number of years ago.

But yes, new stuff does come along, and sometimes the new stuff is old stuff that's been forgotten. It can't be denied that although I was aware of such techniques as close set cap irons can help to control tear out because that's what I was taught by grumpy old codgers. I was also taught how to tune up a plane through such techniques as flattening the sole, good seating of the frog, flattening the flat side of the iron, matching the cap iron to the flat side of the blade, adjusting the slope of the leading edge of the cap iron, and so on all with the intention of leading to improved or optimum performance.

One person whose views on planing topics I did pay attention to was David Weaver. He said some interesting things on another forum about all the stuff in the above paragraph, and more. We eventually corresponded directly about the topic of reducing or eliminating tearout with hand planes and I experimented through taking on board stuff he said (including the horribly named, but effective, 'unicorning' thing) and I found he made valid points. Basically, through our discussions I was able to get my smoothing planes to work better again than they had been working. I don't recall David talking about 'influenced shavings'. But maybe he did and it's simply slipped my mind.

So, I'm not incurious about woodworking subjects, I like to think I'm selective. What did get my curiosity was the influenced shavings descriptor. I'd seen it bandied about, but I didn't know what it was meant to refer to. Now I think I know: basically it seems to mean how you set up your plane 'influences' how it performs, including the 'influence' it has on the shavings (type of, for e.g.) and this has an 'influence' on tear out, or lack of it.

Still, I'm never going to go straight from planing to polishing. There's always some sanding has to be done between planing and polishing. Quite often in my working life there's been little or no hand planing involved in a woodworking project. It's been a case of straight from sanding to polishing, but that's common in a commercial woodworking environment, and I've done plenty of that in my working life alongside one-off custom pieces where the hand tools play a much greater role. Slainte.

Aah that's what you're looking for, and explains why you've not got an answer.
The "influence" reference is from the Kato and Kawai documentation, which is mentioned
in the first article which I learned from David W (D_W here)
and seems like he might not have suggested this to you, because the below link was altered in some way or another, which he wasn't satisfied with at all.
Here you go
https://www.woodcentral.com/articles/index.php?page=673&tags=handtools&search=&op=AND
All the best
Tom

 

[Adam W.]

No need to go insulting everybody tom, it's not a good look.

 

[MikeK]

I was also taught how to tune up a plane through such techniques as flattening the sole, good seating of the frog, flattening the flat side of the iron, matching the cap iron to the flat side of the blade, adjusting the slope of the leading edge of the cap iron, and so on all with the intention of leading to improved or optimum performance.

This effectively describes most of my first week with David Charlesworth as I worked through five of the LN planes I shipped to Devon. I was the sole student for his Tool Tuning course and he proved beyond question that my LN planes, while usable, were not perfect out of the box and most definitely benefited from a little love and care.

 

[Ttrees]

Charlesworth had little understanding of the use of the cap iron, (see his lockdown skype conversation with Cosman)
but at least he didn't clip the corners of the irons. rule no.1
One of the good guys in that regards...provided one doesn't follow his advice
regarding the angle of the cap iron, as 45 degrees of a leading edge ain't going to do the job.
rule no.2

The tight mouth is the other thing which will stop one from learning this, rule no.3
as said earlier, breaking even one of the three above is going to give one the impression that
they've got this down, when they haven't.

Tom

 

[Hornbeam]

What angle do you hone your cap iron at, if you can get away with rounding corners,
since you more or less claim to make use of the cap iron?

Sounds like your talking auld hay aswell.

Is it time of the month Ttrees? or just a certain age
I am pragmatic with the way I use my tools as I prefer to concentrate on making things rather than hypothesising (Keep it simple soldier) . I cant tell you what the angle of the leading edge of my cap irons are . I did swap over to the QS ones from Classic handtools. I have never felt the need to adjust this. I can say that the mouths of my planes have been fettled, The front of the cap iron is smooth and polished and that I do adjust the cap iron depending on what I am doing (heavy cuts vs fine cuts in difficult grain)
I am more than happy with my results, but am open to new ideas

 

[MikeK]

Charlesworth had little understanding of the use of the cap iron, (see his lockdown skype conversation with Cosman)
but at least he didn't clip the corners of the irons. rule no.1
One of the good guys in that regards...provided one doesn't follow his advice
regarding the angle of the cap iron, as 45 degrees of a leading edge ain't going to do the job.
rule no.2

The tight mouth is the other thing which will stop one from learning this, rule no.3
as said earlier, breaking even one of the three above is going to give one the impression that
they've got this down, when they haven't.

Tom

I think you underestimate what David Charlesworth understood about the cap iron. Unfortunately, he's too busy being dead and can't respond to your statement. In my class notes from the Tool Tuning course, David stated anywhere between 45 and 55 degrees on the cap iron would work, and it would be up to me to find an angle that works for my purposes. We also watched the Kawai and Kato video showing the effectiveness of the cap iron with an angle of 50 and 80 degrees.

It's results that count, and I am very satisfied with what I was taught and learned. Should you ever decide to share your expertise on this subject in a hands on practical course, please let me know. I have plenty of free time and would enjoy learning from an expert.

 

[Ttrees]

@MikeK Not seen him mention this, but at the same time, it's clear to see that he was still in the woods about using the cap iron to its full potential, from watching his videos on the subject,
and some mentioning of "suck it and see" in regards to extremely fine grained timbers, or his video where he discussed woods that were "completely unworkable" with a well set Bailey,
and to plane the timber he demonstrated back bevels,
scraper planes, and bevel up planes for "type 2" shavings, in the order of a thousand of an inch"

Don't need be an expert to learn how to use the cap iron, infact it seems the opposite,
as in not having been taught misleading information, and wholeheartedly sticking with that.

If there's interest in any person regarding the not so vast depths of this, that video would be if Warren Mickley would pop by David's house again.
From the two horses themselves, as it were.

All the best
Tom

 

[Jacob]

@MikeK Not seen him mention this, but at the same time, it's clear to see that he was still in the woods about using the cap iron to its full potential, from watching his videos on the subject,
and some mentioning of "suck it and see" in regards to extremely fine grained timbers, or his video where he discussed woods that were "completely unworkable" with a well set Bailey,
and to plane the timber he demonstrated back bevels,
scraper planes, and bevel up planes for "type 2" shavings, in the order of a thousand of an inch"

I really don't get all this stuff. Normal shavings with a cambered blade will taper away to well under a thousandth of an inch. To nothing in fact, at the edges.

 

[Adam W.]

I believe that there is more than one way to successfully plane a bit of wood.

I also believe that D. Charlesworth knew what he was talking about and was a knowledgable man who was not prone to being a bragard or an obnoxious big head, unlike a certain youtuber and candidate for the Dunning-Kruger award for services to shed work, who I care not to mention by name.

 

[Trafalgar]

My goal at this late stage is to build stuff with so few places you could fit or apply a No. 4, that the whole cap-iron crapola is moot. Don't know if I'll get there, but that's the goal. Flat, straight, and square are planing/joinery projects and that's about it. We all do them, but they're boring and barely worth mentioning. I couldn't possibly care less if somebody built a glorious monument to rectilinearity (one a year! well, maybe) and didn't have to use sandpaper. So, what. If this whole thing represented such a breakthrough in "efficiency," a dam breaking so to speak, then where are the ten to twelve significant projects a year? They seem to have gone missing.

And FWIW, the slight and desirable steepening at the tip of an iron or chisel was covered by Robt. Ferencsik writing with Will Neptune, mostly as a result (if memory serves) of stropping on leather as the leather rolls up in a small wave in front of the iron. I'll check. Theirs was a cautionary tale about the angle growing too high as well. An effect easily overdone. They certainly claimed no original discovery but were just relating (to them at least) a well-known phenomenon. They also wrote, in the same book, that a higher angle could be desirable when paring since the edge acted like, you guessed it, a chipbreaker! I've sort of been wondering when somebody would come around and offer this one up as their own little 'discovery.'

None. Of. This. Is. New.

Not a single bit of it. It is at best a rediscovery of something already known and documented. At worst, an appropriation.

 

[aet1]

I love working with wood, I love the smell, the feel, the looks. I do not regard myself as a craftsman, only recently have circumstances allowed me to become more involved in making.
Life took me in different direction - which led me to my love of learning and an ability to teach making sure the student understands the terms I use and not trying to use words in attempt to appear superior.
So I'll get back to the original, genuine, question where someone asked about a simple rounding of the corner of a plane blade because he wanted to know about this and if it was a good or bad idea.
60 years ago I first came across this - on try planes and jack planes used to flatten large areas before more precise planes took the stage further. Many of the ideas and arguments on this thread are not based on the use of a plane to roughly get a slab flat and without understanding this the thread has wandered off with some comments being more concerned with personalities than answering the question.
It's hard to alter the mouth on a wooden plane, the cap iron would not be ground specifically and it is a red herring saying the rounding of the corners would interfere with the action of the cap iron because the cap iron would be set well back - we are talking about thick shavings not fine finish. Remember I'm talking about getting a surface roughly flat with a cut that would be over 1mm, rounded corners were not used on a surface that is already reasonably flat.
Of course now I'd run the timber through a thicknesser, perhaps use a precision loose-tongue gadget and have planks that don't have any steps between them, flattening would not involve such thick cuts and already the slab would be reasonably flat.

I am new to this forum, I want to increase my knowledge but I get frustrated by pedantics, I've come across too many in my life.

Can an old codger on here let me know when a grinding or bevel angle became a primary angle?

 

[Jacob]

......

Can an old codger on here let me know when a grinding or bevel angle became a primary angle?

"Primary, secondary" bevel terminology seem to arrive in the 1980s as far as I was aware. There was a boom in alternative ideas and modern sharpening was born about then.
I got suckered in too, until I realised that trad sharpening was much easier and quicker, and put away jigs etc. now unused for 20 or more years. Sold my expensive Eze-lap plates a few years back. Now down to Norton combination oil stones; one IB8 and one "0" which is finer.
I still sometimes use my very first oil stone bought from Woolworths about 1968, just as a reminder for old times sake!

 

[Adam W.]

Can an old codger on here let me know when a grinding or bevel angle became a primary angle?

I don't bother with that kind of thing either, but for safety in this parish, the angle depends on which side of the Spring equinox we are on.

And It may have become necesarry upon the rise of the youtuber.

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

I admire the skills many have, as demonstrated by work they have done. But that does not mean I accept how they work. Great for ideas, but not gospel.

Jacob touched on the 1980’s terminology for blades. It seems in that time frame woodworking magazines multiplied and then just as quickly morphed into the internet, further refined by the YouTubers. With the latter and the rapidity of content posted, the authors seek to monetize their content. Well, you can’t monetize the same way to bevel an iron a hundred times, so you have to create your own way and maybe hawk some you made to do it.

In any case, much is snake oil and maybe a bit of entertainment. Most is a detour from time tested methods and tools.

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

I don't bother with that kind of thing either, but for safety in this parish, the angle depends on which side of the Spring equinox we are on.

And It may have become necesarry upon the rise of the youtuber.

I’m 70 - I’m an old codger, I guess.

I hollow grind, but I don’t call it anything special. I then free hand to sharp. It is what it is when I’m done.

 

[Jacob]

I’m 70 - I’m an old codger, I guess.

I hollow grind, but I don’t call it anything special. I then free hand to sharp. It is what it is when I’m done.

I'm an even older codger at 78!
I hone a convex bevel freehand and try to avoid grinding altogether.

 

[Trafalgar]

I’m 70 - I’m an old codger, I guess.

I hollow grind, but I don’t call it anything special. I then free hand to sharp. It is what it is when I’m done.

I think the bridge too far was when some people were essentially asserting that what you were seeing in your own shop, day in and day out, couldn't possibly be happening because it defied some law of physics and material science that they had just recently 'discovered.' 99% of what you'd been doing for thirty years was deemed inferior and all because somebody had a pile of test boards in their garage to prove it. No collaborators. Nobody who witnessed the 'breakthrough.' No significant body of work (in difficult woods) to go with. What a joke. "My tests were run literally on one of the easiest woods in the world to plane -- black cherry." Gee, thanks for the insight. It really is comical.

Most people who claim to have replicated the results probably just subconsciously paid more attention to honing than they had before they went out and planed their own pile of easy-to-plane test boards. They got better results simply because the tool was sharper than they'd ever gotten it. That's not a bad thing, but it's not a breakthrough either.

And some people have had the courage to report that their results were not always so great when they got back to actual shop work, on a species of wood a paying customer requested, and at a decent pace to completion. Well, they probably fell back into their old honing habits that's all. Nothing works if the blade isn't sharp. If the blade is sharp, the other stuff is secondary if not tertiary. The same people who gushed about cap irons and tool steels, and all the rest were some of the same people who used to gush over Clark & Williams single iron smoothers at a 55* pitch with an ultra-tight mouth. They weren't wrong, they weren't lying about their results, but that just became old news on the internet. It was simply time to move on to the NEXT BIG THING.

 

[Trafalgar]

I really don't get all this stuff. Normal shavings with a cambered blade will taper away to well under a thousandth of an inch. To nothing in fact, at the edges.

Exactly.

 

[raffo]

I think David clashed with some of the people here because he wanted to discuss his garage experiments. He clearly stated his ideas were from the point of view of working by hand. A lot of the pushback was from people offended from his contradicting what they were taught and were used to doing. The smug dismissive responses from some here, no actually refuting him, just dumb responses like "you're making it complicated" and evasive retorts. He's not a snowflake, just showing him how he was wrong or that what he was doing was not necessary and he would have shut up.

You don't see him hawking classes or monetizing his videos, or begging for patreon subscriptions.

His shining light on the use of the chipbreaker is very remarkable. It just works. In none of his posts or videos he has claimed to have discovered or invented the buffer treatment for edges, he just claimed that he had tested his tools with and without and the difference in performance was real.

One final thought, it's telling about the state of the art in hand woodworking that the chipbreaker is still not recognized in their usefulness as a trivial thing. Recently, I was told by someone who should know better that a cb was not necessary for smoothing, just a sharp blade. Lots of misconceptions and guru quoting seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

Rafael

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

I'm amused (or is it offended) by the YouTubers that have worked some wood for a few years and then create a tool that everyone needs (or thinks they need). Worse are those that always use the line "I bought this with my own money so you can trust my opinion".

Dayam, we're just showing our " old codger-ness".